philthygeezer

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.

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

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

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.".

" 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

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.

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.

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...

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.

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

My point is I keep hearing about this supposed "criminal arms network", yet I have seen little if any evidence to support this claim. Why not talk about the odds of your registered home protection piece being stolen and sold on the street? Let's follow the gun trail to the source, shall we, and dispel once and for all this myth of back-alley arms dealers that are menacing our fair country. They don't exist, people. The street guns that are out there right now were stolen from YOU, the honest gun owner with good intent that couldn't or wouldn't secure the piece from theft. This is a huge crock and has been proven so by the RCMP's own statistics in Canada. ~70% of the guns come from the US illegally. IIRC it was between 5% and 10% stolen from Canadian households. Again, you're making innocent citizens responsible for other's poor personal choices.

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. Manufacturing Mac-10s for criminals in the UK. The point is that I don't care if hundreds of people are lined up on the street to hand you a gun. You and you alone are responsible for your conduct. If you cross the line and pick one up, it should be legal curtains for you. Registering all the guns in North America and tightening restrictions on them just diverts focus from the person who should bear the only responsibility for the crime: the criminal. It's a huge waste of taxpayer time and resources.

The colombine weapons were purchased legally, with proper paperwork. Klebold and Harris were high school kids; loners with no criminal connections who lived in the suburbs. Now tell me that those "outlaws" would have been able to purchase a weapon on the black market. How would they do this - go the suburban street corner gun dealer? If y'all believe that I'd say you watch way too much tv. You think some white kids can walk into the inner city and just buy a gun? Can you? C'mon - be honest. Who would you call to buy a gun if they were all outlawed tomorrow? Would you troll the ghetto with cash, asking all you meet where you can buy a piece? Is that how this works? Sure. That's why no one smokes marijuana in North America. Well it's banned, isn't it?

These so-called hardball news stories never, ever attempt to determine how the perp obtained the weapon. C'mon, let's shine a little light on the situation. Could it be that there was a gunshow in town? Did he get it from a pawnshop with an alias? Did he have someone else purchase the gun? If we are to fix the problem, we first have to identify where and how the gun was obtained. Investigative journalism has all but died because we are so easily led by rhetoric and innuendo: no one seems willing to ask the tough questions and attempt to educate the public on exactly how these criminals obtained their weapon. Doesn't this seem odd to you? Don't you want to know exactly how this guy got his hands on a gun? I do. Only then can we speak intelligently on "gun control" Most of the illegal guns in Canada slip through Canada Customs from the US. The fact is that these people sell drugs at good profits and they obtain weapons no matter who or what tells them 'No'. In Canada, you can't just buy a gun at a gun show - everything has to be registered through Mirimichi New Brunswick office. This guy already had a ban on him so no way he could have bought one legally. All of which proves that registries don't prevent criminals from acquiring firearms. And if you knew anything about Toronto, you'd know that the only gun show in town is Mayor Miller flexing his gun control biceps as he shuts down 50-year-old licensed ranges with no history of problems to curb violent crimes caused mainly by immigrants in certain sections of town. There's one gunshop serving 5 million people in the GTA, and they don't even keep handguns in stock!

Here's how effective telling criminals they can't own guns is: TORONTO -- How many chances at freedom do we give violent criminal John Mensah? And if four rounds he allegedly fired had been a couple of centimetres down and to the right, Toronto would be planning another cop funeral. And if this gunplay took hero cop Const. Lance Verdoold's head off Monday evening, who in the justice system would like to explain to his wife and child that the man who allegedly fired the gun wasn't only granted bail after charges in February involving a gun in a car, but is also on a lifetime court-ordered weapons prohibition for a 2007 conviction? It's safe to say Mensah hasn't yet gotten the message that our justice system doesn't want him around guns. And our justice system, so far, keeps letting him out. It's sick. I know there are some whale kissers who call this progress, but don't tell that to Kevin Permaul, 27, Alia Al-Eazi, 26, and their children, Rashawn, 6, and Kyle, 2, who were violently house-jacked and held at gunpoint just prior to a police chase, which resulted in the cop being shot at. What kind of cowardly scumbags hold up kids and allegedly put a gun to their dad's head in front of them? Today, Mensah, 22, a Canadian citizen who was born in Ghana and had been living in the Jane-Finch area with his mother since being released on bail, is in the slammer charged with attempted murder. He's to appear in court Aug. 21. But for how long? And why was he out on bail in the first place? Records show he served time for weapons possession, was told to not have weapons and was allegedly in a car with another man with a gun in February -- a case that's still before the courts! It's unclear where this case is at in the system. Trying to find out about this alleged attempted cop killer's criminal charges and courtroom status is as hard as trying to win the lottery. His bail hearing papers in Old City Hall courts are missing, everybody understandably seems afraid to release his mugshot in this soft-on-criminals state for fear of reprisals, while this punk who doesn't follow the rules is coddled and bubble-wrapped by the system, which in the past has not wanted to hold on to him. Why don't we punish these people properly? :mad: The media insist that crime is the major concern of the American public today. In this connection they generally push the point that a disarmed society would be a crime-free society. They will not accept the truth that if you take all the guns off the street you still will have a crime problem, whereas if you take the criminals off the street you cannot have a gun problem.

I was looking at getting one of these (about 30 mpg): Or one of these (40-50 mpg): But it seems like the rear seat pass through won't let me put a bass and two cabs in either one. So now I am looking at one of these (26 mpg average): The Element is currently the most desireable for me. I can put a roof rack and a hitch on it and haul a metric {censored}-tonne of stuff out into the boonies. The only other ones (with better mileage) I can think of are the Mazda3: Or the Toyota Matrix: I don't like the look of the 'Toy. I haven't tried the Mazda but it looks to be a winner with a very sporty outlook and 148hp. I'm still stuck on the Element I think.

How small can you go and still get a hard bass case and 2 1x12's in? Looking at Acura RSX on the web., but I have my doubts. Do I need something Accord-sized?