Members zachoff Posted August 14, 2009 Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 FWIW, I used to be pretty big on gun control... For a long time I thought it would help, but a while back I came to grips with the fact that criminals don't care about laws... That's why they're criminals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members philthygeezer Posted August 14, 2009 Author Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 One, then it was still an illegal transfer. Two, given Canada's gun laws, it's incredibly unlikely that someone did that, because in order to purchase a handgun, the Canadian government crawls up your colon with background checks and registration. To buy a handgun and take it from your home to the range requires three different permit types, each of which has to be applied for separately; do you think you're going to just buy a handgun and then hand it to someone else without your purchase being documented? We're regulated beyond belief by faulty legislation mistakenly put in criminal code instead of regulatory code. We can go to jail and have felony records for forgetting paperwork, while {censored}heads like Mensah do whatever the hell they want. Worse yet, every time someone like Mensah gets out and repeats, politicians cry out for more restrictions on us!! 1. You require a PAL license to own restricted firearms. This requires an approved course for certification of competence, a background check and a waiting period. Used to be that handguns were stored at the police department in 'gun jail' until your permits were approved. 2. The restricted firearm can only be transported to and from a licensed range in a locked container, with a trigger lock on the firearm, in a direct path according to the ATT: 3. You require an Authorization To Transport (ATT) permit alongside your PAL to go to and from the range. You must phone Miramichi to have an ATT faxed to you every time you wish to take your handgun to a different location. 4. Storage must occur in a secured container with trigger locks on the firearm. 5. Handguns with barrels less than 4" are prohibited. Any rifle deemed to be on the prohibited list is prohibited. Full autos are prohibited. Semi-automatic centerfire magazines of more than 5 rounds for rifles and 10 for pistols are prohibited. 6. All violations of the firearms regulations are now treated as criminal offences (ie felonys) in Canadian Criminal Code (rather than Regulatory Code like a driver's licence) with penalties of up to 5 years in prison. This means losing your passport/bondability and being classified as a criminal. Hunting, fishing and self-defence are not legal reasons to own restricted firearms in Canada (with the exception of the rare company-sponsored wilderness permit). Only collecting and target shooting are valid reasons. Government list of all prohibited firearms. Prohibs were usually deemed 'forfeit to the crown' in the criminal code. When the Canadian government prohibited these guns, they seized them from the registered owners and destroyed them without compensation to the owners. Not much rhyme or reason as some prohibited weapons were 'grandfathered', meaning the owner could buy and sell with other grandfathered owners but no one else. It's weird to go into a shop and only be legally allowed to buy part of the stock while others can buy other things. Divide and conquer? The legal climate is so restrictive that it makes owning firearms a risk to one's well-being, as one might inadvertently transgress a regulation and get lumped in with real criminals. The reality is that handguns and some kinds of rifles are so restricted that making more laws is completely redundant. but they do it anyway. Politicians who push for more control IMO haven't read the legislation. Mayor Miller in Toronto just announced that the city will not be renewing any property leases for all the firing ranges in town. His attitude is that Federal Law interferes with his regulatory agenda. He wants handguns completely banned in the country - he has tried to introduce legislation and been shot down. IMO now he is doing this by fiat in his own fiefdom, contrary to Canadian Federal Law. Needless to say, firearms owners who go through all the hoops and spend many thousands of dollars on their hobbies are dismayed when asshat politicians foist silly legislation on well-behaved people to make it appear like they are doing something to prevent crime. In short, owning firearms in Canada is possible, but hardly worth it. Canadian Firearms Centre National Firearms Association Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members philthygeezer Posted August 14, 2009 Author Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 CHo, the Va Tech shooter, purchased his guns legally and with proper paperwork. He had been previously committed to a psych ward, yet all he had to do was tick the right checkbox on the form and he got his weapons. Where would cho have obtained his weapon? He was a college kid, a loner, with no criminal connections whatsoever. Maybe this is the disconnect: there's a difference between gun control and licensing ie. people control. If cho had been properly checked he would have been denied a permit. However, this still doesn't preclude him from procuring anything he wanted illegally at the right price. I see a value in licensing to ensure that firearms owners are properly trained, and to screen the psych cases out. But I confess that anyone can get a gun if they really want to, no matter whether under legal injunction not to. You contend the controls on the firearms aren't strict enough. I contend that it doesn't matter how strict they get, people will find a way. All the squeezing in Canada has been on legit, responsible people since 1930 with little to no effect on the rate of violent crime in Canada. Firearms are effectively banned in the UK and they are now the most violent country in Europe. Stringent gun control wastes money while doing nothing to enhance public safety. Worse yet, it provides an easy way for governments to disarm populations of people for reasons that they'll buy into out of fear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members donnievaz Posted August 14, 2009 Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 Strawman. Anyone can grow pot. Only glock can make a Glock: the initial sale was legitimate. So how is that gun on the street? Show me the "back alley network" that is so often alluded to by gun proponents? Oh that's right - you can't, because the lame ass media will not inform us of the history of the handgun used in the crime. Got you all to think, didn't I? Think....question the media reluctance and reluctance of law enforcement agencies to collect and disseminate real data on gun origins. You're absolutely right, BUT your point is moot. The guns are already out there. If you take the guns away from law abiding citizens at this point, whose left? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members philthygeezer Posted August 14, 2009 Author Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 This is speculation. Educated speculation, but speculation nonetheless. We need to know how he obtained the weapon, or we engage in speculation. Dr. Gary Mauser compares Canadian Gun Control stats. http://www2.canada.com/burnabynow/news/opinion/story.html?id=346ad748-17c8-4b3e-a72c-cf449ffbe9df Now I think the 70% I had was Ontario-specific, but can't remember. More research... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members philthygeezer Posted August 14, 2009 Author Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 Strawman. Anyone can grow pot. Only glock can make a Glock: the initial sale was legitimate. So how is that gun on the street? Show me the "back alley network" that is so often alluded to by gun proponents? Oh that's right - you can't, because the lame ass media will not inform us of the history of the handgun used in the crime. Got you all to think, didn't I? Think....question the media reluctance and reluctance of law enforcement agencies to collect and disseminate real data on gun origins. You did get me thinking, and good point about the pot. However, I don't know if the media should be blamed since most guns aren't really traceable, since most of them aren't registered to a government database. From KK it sounds like the Class III stuff is though. I don't know about back alley networks and gun shows, but I do know that the squeezes being put on us have very little to do with those things, as we don't have easy gun show purchases, and often aren't even allowed to own the types of pistols showing up in the gangbangers' pockets. Storage laws are quite stringent in Canada and result in felony charges even if it's just ammo in an unlocked container. Firearms must be in a locked condition away from locked ammo or seizure, forfeiture and criminal records result. I still think in a free society you can own or do anything you want, but all choices have consequences and if you commit a felony with the freedom you have as a birthright, you will lose that birthright. The minute you tread on someone else you reap the whirlwind of law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members philthygeezer Posted August 14, 2009 Author Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 The National Firearms Association website and the Canadian Shooting Sports Association website document the statistics quoted above. Handguns have been restricted and individually registered since 1931, and they only go to and from licensed ranges in locked containers. Completely inoffensive, and yet our government would still ban them all. They've already banned, confiscated or grandfathered every legally-bought handgun with a barrel of less than 4.1 inches. They don't care about making sense or treating citizens like they belong to the True North Strong and Free. Our rights erode daily as the liberal left experiment with ideological social engineering schemas unsupported by evidence. In short, our government lately thinks it can do whatever it wants with us with the excuse that these restrictions of liberty are good for the population. It's devolving into a dictatorial form of communism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members philthygeezer Posted August 14, 2009 Author Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 " prescribed" "prescribed" means prescribed by the regulations;" prohibited ammunition" "prohibited ammunition" means ammunition, or a projectile of any kind, that is prescribed to be prohibited ammunition; "prohibited device" "prohibited device" means(a) any component or part of a weapon, or any accessory for use with a weapon, that is prescribed to be a prohibited device, (b) a handgun barrel that is equal to or less than 105 mm in length, but does not include any such handgun barrel that is prescribed, where the handgun barrel is for use in international sporting competitions governed by the rules of the International Shooting Union, (c) a device or contrivance designed or intended to muffle or stop the sound or report of a firearm, (d) a cartridge magazine that is prescribed to be a prohibited device, or (e) a replica firearm; "prohibited firearm" "prohibited firearm" means(d) any firearm that is prescribed to be a prohibited firearm; "prohibited weapon" "prohibited weapon" means(b) any weapon, other than a firearm, that is prescribed to be a prohibited weapon;" prohibition order" "prohibition order" means an order made under this Act or any other Act of Parliament prohibiting a person from possessing any firearm, cross-bow, prohibited weapon, restricted weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance, or all such things; ... "restricted firearm" "restricted firearm" means (d) a firearm of any other kind that is prescribed to be a restricted firearm;"restricted weapon" "restricted weapon" means any weapon, other than a firearm, that is prescribed to be a restricted weapon;http://everything2.com/title/Criminal+Code+of+Canada+-+Part+III+Firearms+and+Other+Weapons Summary: "these things can be anything we want them to be..." So part of Criminal Code of Canada was re-written to the above in 1995 so that the Gov't could 'prescribe' any object into any restricted or prohibited category it wants. This bill, including widespread prohibition, restriction and confiscation without compensation was forced into law by employing a War Measures action called Order In Council, so it was not voted on in Parliament before becoming Law. "Democracy go to hell!" - Liberal Party of Canada, 1995 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted August 14, 2009 Moderators Share Posted August 14, 2009 Just so everyone remembers that wades_keys and his hyperbolic, unsupported statements about gun shows and gun ownership get pwned on a regular basis. This is a post from a previous thread where an actual gun dealer pointed out the flaws of his arguments. Here's just one- .....Pawn shops and gun shows are under the SAME laws as any gun dealer. They have to have an FFL and are required to do everything a traditional gun dealer would do. They just run it out of a different sort of store, but everything else is the same. I sell guns and ammo for a living........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members georgestrings Posted August 14, 2009 Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 Only then can we speak intelligently on "gun control" You've proven yourself many, many times to be incapable of such a thing... - georgestrings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members philthygeezer Posted August 14, 2009 Author Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 At least wades_keys comes forward with an argument about sources even if it is flawed. What really bothers me is Canadians who are completely ignorant of the paper obstacle course called the Firearms Act and parrot, "We need to to have tighter controls - it's too easy to get a gun." from the newspaper editorials without bothering to check on how strict things are now. Then you prove that it takes months to get all the permitting in place to take a handgun to a range, and that you will have a criminal record for felony involving firearms and can go to jail for up to five years if you screw up some mundane detail of paperwork or storage. the answer is always, "Wow, I had no idea you guys had to go to all that trouble.". If every legal gun in Canada were confiscated from Free Citizens of Canada, and melted down without compensation, (multi-paroled, repeat-offending) criminals would still be committing crimes with guns and the media would still be complaining that, "We need to to have tighter controls - it's too easy to get a gun.". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MrJoshua Posted August 14, 2009 Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 They had an 18 year old friend make the purchase. This criminal may very well have done the same thing. The 18-year-old then sold or gave those guns to the younger kids, without the consent of their parents. At that point it rather ceases to be a legal transaction, no? If I buy a rifle, well and good. If I then sell that rifle to a felon, it's no longer a "legally-purchased" rifle. edit: man. I have GOT to start reading the whole thread before I reply. nothing to see here. move along, folks... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members georgestrings Posted August 14, 2009 Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 Sounds like a bad narrative from one of those late-night police chase shows on Spike. IMO this has nothing to do with gun control... It has to do with crime and punishment. Criminals can get guns. Gun control laws don't affect them. Gun control affects law abiding citizens, which doesn't apply in this story at all. Exactly - liberals like Wade seem blind to these realities - willingly ignorant, actually... Fact is, prohibition has NEVER worked in this country, nor any other - history clearly shows this... There will always be a functioning black market in any country - and Wade's myopic approach to this very real problem won't make a dent in the REAL problem, which is violent career criminals that don't care about laws, and are not being effectively punished... - georgestrings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members vanlatte Posted August 14, 2009 Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 There is no possible way that this man purchased a gun legally. Somewhere along the line, multiple people circumvented multiple gun laws in order to get him a gun. But it's easier and makes better press to assume that some drooling, war mongering gun seller found a way to push a gun into the guys hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 78pbass Posted August 14, 2009 Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 To me, the only way to keep criminals in check is with a properly documented and regulated Concealed Carry Licenses like we have here in TX. Right now I have no statistics to support my thought, but the concept is if criminals want to commit a gun-related crime, they'd more likely think about it first if they believed ~20% of the people in the 'room' were armed. It could be a false idea, but I know that of the poeple I know with CCL, I regularly trust them all with my kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author Craig Vecchione Posted August 14, 2009 CMS Author Share Posted August 14, 2009 They had an 18 year old friend make the purchase. This criminal may very well have done the same thing. If the person holding a gun didn't obtain the weapon legally, it doesn't matter that the person who sold or gave it to them bought it legally. Obtaining a gun legally and then selling it or giving it to someone without a legal transfer is known as a "straw purchase", and is illegal. Cho was not a minor....he was 24 at the time of his death. He didn't obtain the guns "legally", because he falsified his permit applications. The failure of Virginia's background check system doesn't mean that guns need to be swept from our country. You can't regulate intent to harm. Some people kill others with their vehicles. Should we ban cars? Some kill using kitchen knives or baseball bats. Ban them? I'm confident that any attempt at banning cars, knives or bats will have the same result as any attempt to ban handguns....failure to curb crime. If you really thing that a white kid can't buy a handgun illegally with the greatest ease, you really need to do more research. That's the same premise as "white kids can't buy drugs in the inner city". They don't need to....drugs and guns are available in the most remote rural areas, the suburbs, just as well as downtown urban areas. It's everywhere. And just as the "war on drugs" is a massive fail, so too would be a "war on handguns". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members georgestrings Posted August 14, 2009 Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 Just so everyone remembers that wades_keys and his hyperbolic, unsupported statements about gun shows and gun ownership get pwned on a regular basis. This is a post from a previous thread where an actual gun dealer pointed out the flaws of his arguments. Here's just one- Yup - and even though his bull{censored} has been shot down numerous times, he continues with the same tired old hysterics - then wonders why no one takes him seriously.... - georgestrings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members The Real MC Posted August 14, 2009 Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 Ted Nugent said it best "I don't like repeat offenders; I like DEAD offenders" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author Craig Vecchione Posted August 14, 2009 CMS Author Share Posted August 14, 2009 To me, the only way to keep criminals in check is with a properly documented and regulated Concealed Carry Licenses like we have here in TX. Right now I have no statistics to support my thought, but the concept is if criminals want to commit a gun-related crime, they'd more likely think about it first if they believed ~20% of the people in the 'room' were armed. It could be a false idea, but I know that of the poeple I know with CCL, I regularly trust them all with my kids. I don't know whether this would work or not. I doubt it would have any real effect on the nutjobs like Cho, or on crimes of passion. These people will find a way, and that's the aspect conveniently ignored by people with an anti-gun agenda....they're taking the acts of a mentally ill person and ascribing blame where it doesn't lie. They also have a "perfect world" mentality of assuming we can somehow wipe the streets of literally millions of guns currently in circulation. The horse has long since left that barn, don't bother closing the door.... But for premeditated crimes, there's probably some validity to a criminal thinking twice about taking down a liquor store or convenience mart if they assume part of the clientele and ownership are CCL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members walkerci Posted August 14, 2009 Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 Ted Nugent said it best "I don't like repeat offenders; I like DEAD offenders" Awesome. It would be interesting to see the statistics on guns stolen from police officer's homes, National Guard Armories, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sludgebass69 Posted August 14, 2009 Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 I don't know whether this would work or not. I doubt it would have any real effect on the nutjobs like Cho, or on crimes of passion. These people will find a way, and that's the aspect conveniently ignored by people with an anti-gun agenda....they're taking the acts of a mentally ill person and ascribing blame where it doesn't lie. They also have a "perfect world" mentality of assuming we can somehow wipe the streets of literally millions of guns currently in circulation. The horse has long since left that barn, don't bother closing the door.... But for premeditated crimes, there's probably some validity to a criminal thinking twice about taking down a liquor store or convenience mart if they assume part of the clientele and ownership are CCL. +1 As for the CCL issue, I'd love to see it here. Unfortunately Illinois is not going that way anytime soon. I don't think it would a deterrent for the nut jobs who are out to take out as many as they can then kill themselves at the end, but it would at least give a better chance of stopping them early on in their rampage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members philthygeezer Posted August 14, 2009 Author Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 I don't know whether this would work or not. I doubt it would have any real effect on the nutjobs like Cho, or on crimes of passion. These people will find a way, and that's the aspect conveniently ignored by people with an anti-gun agenda....they're taking the acts of a mentally ill person and ascribing blame where it doesn't lie. They also have a "perfect world" mentality of assuming we can somehow wipe the streets of literally millions of guns currently in circulation. The horse has long since left that barn, don't bother closing the door.... But for premeditated crimes, there's probably some validity to a criminal thinking twice about taking down a liquor store or convenience mart if they assume part of the clientele and ownership are CCL. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/nyregion/14shoot.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&hp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 78pbass Posted August 14, 2009 Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 +1 As for the CCL issue, I'd love to see it here. Unfortunately Illinois is not going that way anytime soon. I don't think it would a deterrent for the nut jobs who are out to take out as many as they can then kill themselves at the end, but it would at least give a better chance of stopping them early on in their rampage. I have an anecdote you may like.. A good friend of mine and neighbor was enroute to southern IL on his bike. He's got his concealed and is quite law abiding. Well, when he got just shy of the IL border, he stopped for gas, took his a towel from his topcase (on the back of the bike) draped it over his hand and removed his pistol and holster from the small of his back to lock away. Before he got a chance to drop the magazine to lock in the tank bag (IL law states that the magazine and the gun need to be locked in separate compartments in a vehicle), some guy approached him about his bike. The conversation (and Sean is not social in nature) kept on while the other guy got out of the truck and it got serious fast. here's how the conversation went: Perp: what kind of gas mileage does that get Sean: 40's perp: speaking of gas, why dont you fill up our truck Sean: what? perp: you're gonna you fill up our truck (they start stepping closer) Sean: No, i'm not perp: yes you are! Sean: (calmly lifts towel concealing pistol) No, I am not. They then get in the truck and tear ass out of there. In this case, had he been a few miles further, he may have been mugged and hurt or worse. The CCL did its job the way it was designed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members philthygeezer Posted August 14, 2009 Author Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 And then there's Canada: Toronto Police request assistance after man shot during robbery, Dufferin Street/Eglinton Avenue West, 13 Division Friday, August 14, 2009 - 11:16 AM 13 Division 416-808-1300 On Friday, August 14, 2009, at 2:30 a.m., police responded to a call for a shooting in the Dufferin Street/Eglinton Avenue West area. It is reported that: - a man was at a payphone in the Dufferin Street/Eglinton Avenue West area when he was approached by three men, - the suspects demanded money and property and the victim complied but the suspects demanded more from him, - the victim began to run, the suspects ran after him and he was shot in the abdomen. The victim was taken to hospital with non-life threatening injuries. The suspects are described as: #1: light black complexion, 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members philthygeezer Posted August 14, 2009 Author Members Share Posted August 14, 2009 Yup - and even though his bull{censored} has been shot down numerous times, he continues with the same tired old hysterics - then wonders why no one takes him seriously.... - georgestrings That's a bit harsh, isn't it? Everyone comes up with ideas for a reason, but sometimes it takes time to digest opposing evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.