Beyond the registry

[Scar270]

Originally Posted by 858king

You hit the nail on the HEAD, minus the lobotomy!

Which leads me to think that setting "unreasonable", "elite", "draconian" standards would weed out the dangerous human minds, and only, at least theoretically, leave us with the human minds we want.

I think the reason it's so insulting is because the people protesting it are perfectly sane, perfectly reasonable, and have loads of experience with firearms of all types with an excellent safety record, and they don't want to have those types of hoops presented to them because they realistically don't need them and it's an insult to their integrity. Justifiable for sure. But at present, we can't do anything with pistols aside from shooting targets at a registered range, which is kind of lame. If we're going to ask the general public to bend towards a relatively unnecessary hobby (because the life and death stuff is already legal for the most part) that has the potential to harm them, we better have a great basis for doing so.

When you start letting the government determine who is dangerous and who isn't, without allowing people the chance, we end up like stalinist russia, where we can all be imprisoned for our potential thoughts.

Part of being in a free society is the risk that someone may harm you, because everyone has a right to freedom until they abuse that trust. However the other part of a free society, the part we are missing, is that free people are able to do what they need to to protect themselves, so long as it doesn't harm others who are innocent.

Originally Posted by Scar270

The idea of court ordered firearms prohibitions are ludicrous, the idea that a piece of paper banning them from having a firearm is going to make anyone safer, unless there is some sort of way to ensure that they can't get them. If anyone should be subject to unwarranted searches, and address change reporting, it's those with prohibitions, not those with licenses.

Well said. We live in a society where we feel placing onerous burdens on law abiding citizens will keep us safe. Some don't see the irony.

[landman]

Originally Posted by Scar270

When you start letting the government determine who is dangerous and who isn't, without allowing people the chance, we end up like stalinist russia, where we can all be imprisoned for our potential thoughts.

Part of being in a free society is the risk that someone may harm you, because everyone has a right to freedom until they abuse that trust. However the other part of a free society, the part we are missing, is that free people are able to do what they need to to protect themselves, so long as it doesn't harm others who are innocent.

So who should decide who is dangerous? Perhaps you run with a better class of people than me, but I can confidently say that I know individuals who have never been convicted of a crime, but I would absolutely cringe if they had firearms in their possession. Not everyone in our society is suitable for firearm ownership.
It's nice to say that we should have the freedom to firearms until we abuse the trust, but firearm mistakes mean guns in the wrong hands or people getting hurt.

[Loch Sloy!]

Step 1 is to change the game regs to allow handgun hunting. Perhaps start small; Upland game bird only intially. I would love to be able to carry a .22 pistol for grouse.

Once its legal for hunting we would have a good argument for ATTs to and from our hunting areas etc.

[858king]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

Well said. We live in a society where we feel placing onerous burdens on law abiding citizens will keep us safe. Some don't see the irony.

The government always has and always will decide who's too dangerous to be free in a society. We elect that government. The system is always open to abuse, but we control that system. If you want a classic Libertarian free society, move to Somalia or Sudan, buy all the guns you want, and use them however you want.

People move here to assume our so-called "onerous burdens" because it allows them to sleep at night. My wife was born in Brasil and sister-in-law in Kabul, and both sets of relatives moved here because of our "onerous burdens". Out of both sets, for instance, there've been approx. 20 armed robberies (at least one per relative, all using pistols to my knowledge) and two attempted car and suicide bombings.

With laws in place, controls are made whereby what was once arbitrary is codified: while shooting a pistol in town was once bad form, it is now illegal. The codification of that law allows anti-social behaviour to be monitored and penalized. Change the situation, to a gun range for instance inside a town, and you're good to go, because the situation is no longer anti-social. So render unlicensed pistol use illegal, and you've created a measuring stick. By creating a way to make it legal, you've opened up a whole world of responsible, measurable ownership that could maybe one day be stomached by Canadian society as a whole.

So far as the statement goes that if a person can't be trusted with a gun, then they can't be trusted to walk in society: I get your point, but a toddler can't be trusted with a gun, and we don't lock them up (more or less). Neither could, I'd guess, a schizophrenic off of meds, and we all know one. Neither could someone's grandpa with dementia, or someone's high school kid high on acid. None of these people would be thrown in prison, but none of them can be trusted.

I think you missed my point 858....even though shooting a pistol in town is illegal, it still happens......it's just that the law-abiding citizens burdened with onerous laws aren't the perpetrators. Placing more burden on the law abiding citizens won't change that.

You really do put the reductio in Reductio ad absurdum

You seem to think that anyone that doesn't support the nanny state supports chaos. There is a whole lot of sensible ground in between. It's where most of us live. You should come for a visit one day

[858king]

Originally Posted by sheephunter

I think you missed my point 858....even though shooting a pistol in town is illegal, it still happens......it's just that the law-abiding citizens burdened with onerous laws aren't the perpetrators. Placing more burden on the law abiding citizens won't change that.

You really do put the reductio in Reductio ad absurdum

You seem to think that anyone that doesn't support the nanny state supports chaos. There is a whole lot of sensible ground in between. It's where most of us live. You should come for a visit one day

I think if you were going to run a casual study of newspapers across the country, including the French ones, you'd find I centre/centre-right, which is pretty close to middle ground. Pretty far left for most of the vocal users of this forum, though.

The Nanny State says "No guns at all" and I fail to see how proposing a system where pistol regulations are relaxed is nanny-statist (relaxed in the sense of broadening overall usage).

Regards shooting a pistol in town, you say that it's not law-abiding gun owners who do that, and yes, that's true -- because as soon as they do it, they are no longer law abiding gun-owners, they are law breaking gun owners. It's the same with all aspects of gun use: you're a law-abiding gun owner until you break the law. My position would be in the hopes of minimizing the amount of people likely to break the law. That's why I think the focus of gun controls in general should be on the front end (training) and the burden of responsibility afterwards. Gun ownership should be a burden, at least to a degree, shouldn't it?

Of course, the quickest way to not break a law is for the law not to be there at all in the first place -- is that what you mean Sheephunter?

Originally Posted by 858king

I think if you were going to run a casual study of newspapers across the country, including the French ones, you'd find I centre/centre-right, which is pretty close to middle ground. Pretty far left for most of the vocal users of this forum, though.

The Nanny State says "No guns at all" and I fail to see how proposing a system where pistol regulations are relaxed is nanny-statist (relaxed in the sense of broadening overall usage).

Regards shooting a pistol in town, you say that it's not law-abiding gun owners who do that, and yes, that's true -- because as soon as they do it, they are no longer law abiding gun-owners, they are law breaking gun owners. It's the same with all aspects of gun use: you're a law-abiding gun owner until you break the law. My position would be in the hopes of minimizing the amount of people likely to break the law. That's why I think the focus of gun controls in general should be on the front end (training) and the burden of responsibility afterwards. Gun ownership should be a burden, at least to a degree, shouldn't it?

Trust me, most of the people shooting pistols in town were never law-abiding citizens and our already onerous laws haven't prevented them from going down that path. The focus of gun control should be locking up those that abuse them.....not making it more difficult for those that already follow the law. Gun ownership is already a huge burden. I've basically given up all my rights as a Canadian citizen because I choose to own one. I'm a legal gun owner. I doubt the illegal owners feel the same burden nor will they feel an additional burden under your scheme.

A for your last question, look up the definition of Reductio ad absurdum. It applies in spades.

[landman]

Originally Posted by 858king

I think if you were going to run a casual study of newspapers across the country, including the French ones, you'd find I centre/centre-right, which is pretty close to middle ground. Pretty far left for most of the vocal users of this forum, though.

The Nanny State says "No guns at all" and I fail to see how proposing a system where pistol regulations are relaxed is nanny-statist (relaxed in the sense of broadening overall usage).

Regards shooting a pistol in town, you say that it's not law-abiding gun owners who do that, and yes, that's true -- because as soon as they do it, they are no longer law abiding gun-owners, they are law breaking gun owners. It's the same with all aspects of gun use: you're a law-abiding gun owner until you break the law. My position would be in the hopes of minimizing the amount of people likely to break the law. That's why I think the focus of gun controls in general should be on the front end (training) and the burden of responsibility afterwards. Gun ownership should be a burden, at least to a degree, shouldn't it?

Of course, the quickest way to not break a law is for the law not to be there at all in the first place -- is that what you mean Sheephunter?

There should be training to ensure that those licensed to have firearms know what they are doing - but isn't ownership being a burden a little excessive?
Perhaps I should ask, what would the burden be?

[858king]

Originally Posted by landman

There should be training to ensure that those licensed to have firearms know what they are doing - but isn't ownership being a burden a little excessive?
Perhaps I should ask, what would the burden be?

Well like with a car: to use it it has to be upheld to certain safety standards, we have to be licensed and operate within certain rules. All burdens. Gas heat in the winter is a burden because it needs to be worked for. Guns require licences, storage rules, etc -- burdens.

In re: Sheephunter: Owning a gun is a pain in the butt. Transporting a gun is a pain in the butt. Storing a gun is a pain in the butt. Agreed!

Regards Reductio Ad Absurdem: basic sales method sometimes considered a logical fallacy along with such others as ad hominem attacks, red herrings, ad hoc fallacy, slippery slope, etc. I know what it is. I wasn't baiting you at all, I was making the point that the more rules there are, the greater the likelihood that they'll be broken accidentally or otherwise. Hence the onerous burden portion of your argument: more laws mean more burden.

[Scar270]

Does anyone on here actually believe that our current gun laws are doing anything to make any of us safer?

If not, then why on earth would adding more regulations in order to slightly lift parts of what we have make us safer?

[SkytopBrewster]

Originally Posted by Scar270

Does anyone on here actually believe that our current gun laws are doing anything to make any of us safer?

If not, then why on earth would adding more regulations in order to slightly lift parts of what we have make us safer?

For me, it's not a matter of feeling "safer", I can defend my home/self if need be with any firearm, it's a matter of responsible/law abiding gun owners being able to use a handgun that they already legally own.

You can have all the regulations/laws, a criminal is a criminal, they do not care about the law. Why don't they ban drunk driving, cocaine and other drugs, stealing, robbery, home invasion, etc.

[Scar270]

Exactly my point, making things illegal only effects those who respect the law. Those who don't never will. Making things that don't harm people illegal to stop people from harming others is absolutely ridiculous.

This is proven time and time again when different US states have legalized the carrying of handguns. In Texas at least, Concealed Carry Permit holders have a lower rate of criminal activity then the police do. I suspect it's similar in most states.