Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Guns & Ammo Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #241  
Old 11-21-2011, 07:34 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,842
Default

Quote:
Tactical Lever: At the risk of sound like a "hippie" again, i still don't see how opening the restriction would help the rape, robbery, etc victims. It would just make it easier for lesser lowlifes to get a gun, or prompt them them to shoot first before jumping somebody with a hand in their jacket or purse.
There is a huge difference between making handguns non restricted, and allowing concealed carry. You could make handguns unrestricted, so people can carry them in the woods, and shoot them at their farm, without allowing people to carry them concealed, or even carry them uncased in the city.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #242  
Old 11-21-2011, 08:20 PM
Camp Cook Camp Cook is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: BC
Posts: 217
Default

WOW the force is weak in this one...
Reply With Quote
  #243  
Old 11-21-2011, 08:45 PM
Unregistered user Unregistered user is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 5,140
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
There is a huge difference between making handguns non restricted, and allowing concealed carry. You could make handguns unrestricted, so people can carry them in the woods, and shoot them at their farm, without allowing people to carry them concealed, or even carry them uncased in the city.
Like most men, I pack a concealed penis whether I'm in town or out in the bush. Like most men I like women. Like most men I am not a rapist. Regulating a "Tool" is folly. Get it?
__________________
Former Ford Fan
Reply With Quote
  #244  
Old 11-21-2011, 08:51 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,842
Default

Quote:
Like most men, I pack a concealed penis whether I'm in town or out in the bush. Like most men I like women. Like most men I am not a rapist. Regulating a "Tool" is folly. Get it?
I was just making the point that it is not an all or nothing proposition, just because you do away with the restricted status does not mean that you have to allow people to walk into a bar or a bank with a concealed handgun. Then again, it isn't a good idea to do that with any firearm.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #245  
Old 11-21-2011, 09:06 PM
hillbillyreefer's Avatar
hillbillyreefer hillbillyreefer is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,672
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by encalibur View Post
@Tactical Lever: At the risk of sound like a "hippie" again, i still don't see how opening the restriction would help the rape, robbery, etc victims. It would just make it easier for lesser lowlifes to get a gun, or prompt them them to shoot first before jumping somebody with a hand in their jacket or purse.

@hillbillyreefer: i guess the intended use or purpose of a firearm is debatable since you can point the barrel at anything, but a firearm that is easily concealable and is the firearm of choice for criminals is definitely not the same as the .22 or .17 i'm about to purchase (very excited at my eventual first rifle by the way )

I suppose i need to be convinced that not restricting handguns will not = more handguns in the hands of those that shouldn't have guns or more crime with handguns. Aren't there hard stats available? (honest question).

IMO the biggest hurdle is not those of us that browse the forum, it's the population of urbanites that don't see a use for guns period, visit go for day trip to a national once a year and think they appreciate wildlife and the environment.
Perhaps you should start at page one and read this entire thread. There has been some excellent hard stats posted on this topic. Once you are done reading it come back with any logical questions you may have. Do some research on what has happened in the States when restrictions are relaxed, then check England, and Jamaica to see what happens when restrictions are increased. The interesting part about the two islands are just that, they can't even blame long porous boarders, for making gun smuggling easier.

You seem to forget that licensed individuals have been vetted by the state after going through a course and testing. That is the ONLY way to get a LICENSE. If you passed all the checks and balances to be granted an RPAL why not be able to have a restricted not at home or at the range?
__________________
Upset a Lefty, Fly a Drone!

"I find it interesting that some folk will pay to use a range, use a golf course, use a garage bay but think landowners should have to give permission for free. Do these same people think hookers should be treated like landowners?" pitw
Reply With Quote
  #246  
Old 11-22-2011, 02:26 AM
uglyelk uglyelk is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Banff
Posts: 1,578
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Okotokian View Post
But UE, I haven't heard of a lot of crimes in Canada committed with the 50 cal. machineguns I referenced. I prefer to think that is because as a prohibited weapon, there are just very few of them around. You prefer to believe that any break and enter artist or mugger could have one if he wished but that the criminals we have are just too honest and ethical to want one...

Now which do you think is REALLY more likely?
I prefer to think it's cause most gun owners are not criminals

As far as prohibs being tough to hide check this out!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShsASxHXTFY

Oki, armed robbery was not a big problem when the first restricted registry was started.

Prohibs have also never been widely used in crime in Canada....before or after the restrictions came into play
.
The present regulations made criminals of lots of gun owners. All it takes is a lapse in paper work and you can’t reregister or sell, your property goes to the ban saw.

As a result there is lots of forbidden fruit for sale. I can bun an FN cheaper than I can the average pistol or hunting rifle. Because so few people can purchase them legally many folks stuck with them are willing to dispose of the problem rather cheaply.

Supply and demand the demand for firearms to commit crimes is rather small no matter what Wendy tells you.
__________________
Fortiter et Recte
Reply With Quote
  #247  
Old 11-22-2011, 07:32 AM
1100winger 1100winger is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 297
Default damn website

just sat here and composed a nice reply - took a bit of time and this damn website tossed me out because I took too long -
grrrrr
Apparently a 30 minute typing exercise gone down the drain. Heres the gist:
leave current handgun rules towards ownership and transport the way they are, they are adequate and IMO - reasonable. If some damn fool wants to wave a handgun around and threaten others then he/she gets what they deserve. We should be storing all firearms safely - although I can't remember any farm houses I have visited that didn't have a 30 30 behind the door ready to go. That would be considered safe storage.
Open carry in the bush for small game/varmints only - I would not support any thought towards a big game season, long gun hunters are disadvantaged enough over those with arrows and smoke poles. Our season would be Oct 32/33 for two hours at high noon. We need to claw back decent hunting seasons from the primitive crowd - not add more options to an already messed up hunting season.
Reply With Quote
  #248  
Old 11-22-2011, 07:36 AM
Tactical Lever Tactical Lever is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Fox Creek
Posts: 3,315
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by encalibur View Post
@Tactical Lever: At the risk of sound like a "hippie" again, i still don't see how opening the restriction would help the rape, robbery, etc victims. It would just make it easier for lesser lowlifes to get a gun, or prompt them them to shoot first before jumping somebody with a hand in their jacket or purse.

@hillbillyreefer: i guess the intended use or purpose of a firearm is debatable since you can point the barrel at anything, but a firearm that is easily concealable and is the firearm of choice for criminals is definitely not the same as the .22 or .17 i'm about to purchase (very excited at my eventual first rifle by the way )

I suppose i need to be convinced that not restricting handguns will not = more handguns in the hands of those that shouldn't have guns or more crime with handguns. Aren't there hard stats available? (honest question).

IMO the biggest hurdle is not those of us that browse the forum, it's the population of urbanites that don't see a use for guns period, visit go for day trip to a national once a year and think they appreciate wildlife and the environment.
I was not calling you a hippie, but it's totally ok if you are. Why would non-restricting guns put more in the hands of the criminals? You do realize that you still need a license to purchase and own, right? FWIW, restricted status and lack of a license did not prevent a couple people I know of, from acquiring pistols. I believe it was last year or year before that a couple of thugs shot up a restaurant with FA weapons in Edmonton, apparently unconcerned about the prohib status of their guns.

What allowing carry would do, is level the playing field; it is not the criminal that is hobbled by the restrictions on guns. If someone on the bus was a legally carrying, they could have stopped both the guy that hacked off another's head on a Greyhound, and the punk that stomped the bus driver into critical condition last year.

So by your own admission, non-restricted guns are not very often carried by crooks, even though their status supposedly makes them soooo easy to get a hold of....?
Reply With Quote
  #249  
Old 11-22-2011, 08:01 AM
Camp Cook Camp Cook is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: BC
Posts: 217
Default

The anti comments here are exactly the same as the anti comments that came out of the States when CCW was first being introduced...

Difference now is that enough time has passed to prove that allowing law abiding citizens to carry concealed or open has not resulted in an increase in crime but rather the opposite much to the shagrin of the anti's.

So anyone that is still against handguns being used for hunting/defense you have been proven completely wrong crime goes down and criminals do not have more access to handguns or any other firearm.

It is rather pathetic how some hang on to the emotional spewings of the anti's that have repeatedly been proven to be lying...
Reply With Quote
  #250  
Old 11-22-2011, 08:50 AM
Okotokian's Avatar
Okotokian Okotokian is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Uh, guess? :)
Posts: 26,739
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pudelpointer View Post
Oki, are we having a spree of crimes bein committed with non-restricted rifles? With handguns? With knives? Truth is, we don't have many "crime sprees" in this country (except in Winnipeg apparently). Why is that? Maybe because the extreme majority of Canadians can resist the urge to become homicidal psychopaths when in possession of any sort of "weapon", from firearms to rocks.
Totally missses the point. It seems to be gospel here that any criminal of any ilk can easily get any weapon they want. But the simple fact of the matter is that the majority of criminals do not use prohibited weapons in crimes. Few criminals in Canada pack full auto uzi's. Would anyone like to dispute THAT fact.

Now if you accept the above, then my claim is that a partial reason for that is that they are rather hard to come by (not impossible, but hard). My contention is that if, say, an uzi was non-restricted and 50% of the membership of this board owned a couple, they would be incredibly easy for any criminal to obtain. They would be as common as .22's. They would be coming out the back of WSS like water. I'm sort of agog how some here think they wouldn't be used more by criminals if there were a few hundred thousand of them in the country.
Reply With Quote
  #251  
Old 11-22-2011, 09:00 AM
Scar270 Scar270 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 468
Default

Oki, it wasn't that long ago you could buy FAL's at the local hardware store, now they are prohibited, did you see a drastic reduction in the number of crimes committed with FAL's once they were prohibited?
Reply With Quote
  #252  
Old 11-22-2011, 09:07 AM
Scar270 Scar270 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 468
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1100winger View Post
just sat here and composed a nice reply - took a bit of time and this damn website tossed me out because I took too long -
grrrrr
Apparently a 30 minute typing exercise gone down the drain. Heres the gist:
leave current handgun rules towards ownership and transport the way they are, they are adequate and IMO - reasonable. If some damn fool wants to wave a handgun around and threaten others then he/she gets what they deserve. We should be storing all firearms safely - although I can't remember any farm houses I have visited that didn't have a 30 30 behind the door ready to go. That would be considered safe storage.
Open carry in the bush for small game/varmints only - I would not support any thought towards a big game season, long gun hunters are disadvantaged enough over those with arrows and smoke poles. Our season would be Oct 32/33 for two hours at high noon. We need to claw back decent hunting seasons from the primitive crowd - not add more options to an already messed up hunting season.
Ok, just because you think they are reasonable, since they obviously don't effect you, doesn't mean they are. I'm tired of people being so willing to restrict other peoples freedoms because it doesn't effect them. We got a body armor ban because most people don't own it or care to. I don't have any or care to either, but I'm ****ed as hell that our government decided to ban it.

You are so selfish about your hunting season you are wanting to restrict someone elses enjoyment. I'm the guy that has been asking for handgun hunting with AFGA forever, I am not asking for a special season, I'd be quite happy to be out there hunting beside rifle hunters with my handgun. While on the topic, I have never seen rifle seasons being shrunk, they have added other seasons, but rifle seasons have never been shortened since I started hunting. In fact in the CWD zones the Season was lengthened by 20 days, more if you consider they have added Sunday hunting in that time too.

By the sort of logic you seem to use, I should lobby to ban semi auto's for bird hunting, after all I use a sxs or o/u and find two shots quite adequate for my uses, I don't have any need for a semi, or even a pump with the extra shots, so if they restricted them and you could only use them at the range should I support that, since it doesn't adversely effect me?

You better take a serious look at what your saying, and contemplate how long you would be hunting and shooting at all if everyone took the same sort of view you do. Remember all the whining about how we are deregistering high power SNIPER RIFLES, in case you missed it, that is your bolt action deer rifle.
Reply With Quote
  #253  
Old 11-22-2011, 09:18 AM
Okotokian's Avatar
Okotokian Okotokian is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Uh, guess? :)
Posts: 26,739
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scar270 View Post
Oki, it wasn't that long ago you could buy FAL's at the local hardware store, now they are prohibited, did you see a drastic reduction in the number of crimes committed with FAL's once they were prohibited?
FAL's... You mean large bulky semi-automatic rifles?
Reply With Quote
  #254  
Old 11-22-2011, 09:28 AM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,842
Default

Quote:
FAL's... You mean large bulky semi-automatic rifles?
So what sense does it make to prohibit them?
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #255  
Old 11-22-2011, 10:14 AM
Scar270 Scar270 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 468
Default

Kinda like large bulky Uzi's, really not that useful for day to day crime.

Why would you carry an uzi for robbing little old ladies when you could do the same thing with a glock, or a knife, or just by having a group of buddies?

The point is prohibition doesn't effect criminals. If they really wanted Uzi's they would get them, and more to the point is, it doesn't really matter what they use, a gun is a gun. If I'm being robbed I sure as heck don't care if they have an uzi or a glock or a cooey pointed at me. The government has insured that I am defenseless, so I will be doing what they say regardless of which firearm they are holding.
Reply With Quote
  #256  
Old 11-22-2011, 10:18 AM
Scar270 Scar270 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 468
Default

North American Arms makes a .22lr revolver with a 1 5/8" barrel, it will fit in a belt buckle. Has there been a drop in the number of crimes with them since they were prohibited?

It's not a matter of size, it's a matter of what the criminals want to use.
Reply With Quote
  #257  
Old 11-22-2011, 10:29 AM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,842
Default

The sad fact, is that one of the reasons that it is so hard to reform our firearms laws, is that some firearms owners themselves, are so paranoid, and untrusting of other firearms owners. Those people, some of them who are even members of our forum, are as much of a hindrance to making our firearms laws more sensible, as the anti gun groups are. I personally believe that if a referendum was held today, some of our own forum members would vote to keep the long gun registry.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #258  
Old 11-22-2011, 10:42 AM
Apocalypse_now's Avatar
Apocalypse_now Apocalypse_now is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Mundare AB
Posts: 189
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scar270 View Post
The point is prohibition doesn't effect criminals. If they really wanted Uzi's they would get them, and more to the point is, it doesn't really matter what they use, a gun is a gun. If I'm being robbed I sure as heck don't care if they have an uzi or a glock or a cooey pointed at me. The government has insured that I am defenseless, so I will be doing what they say regardless of which firearm they are holding.
X2 exept the prohibition part. How did prohibition work out for say, Al Capone? or the marijuana industry? It made them stronger and the average Joe defenceless...and thirsty
Reply With Quote
  #259  
Old 11-22-2011, 10:48 AM
Scar270 Scar270 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 468
Default

Very good point, prohibition does tend to be very profitable for the criminal element.

What scares me is the conversations on this forum concerning firearms controls are not very different at all then the one's I have on Liberal forums, except I'm not a lone voice on this one.
Reply With Quote
  #260  
Old 11-22-2011, 11:21 AM
Lonnie Lonnie is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,709
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Okotokian View Post
Totally missses the point. It seems to be gospel here that any criminal of any ilk can easily get any weapon they want. But the simple fact of the matter is that the majority of criminals do not use prohibited weapons in crimes. Few criminals in Canada pack full auto uzi's. Would anyone like to dispute THAT fact.

Now if you accept the above, then my claim is that a partial reason for that is that they are rather hard to come by (not impossible, but hard). My contention is that if, say, an uzi was non-restricted and 50% of the membership of this board owned a couple, they would be incredibly easy for any criminal to obtain. They would be as common as .22's. They would be coming out the back of WSS like water. I'm sort of agog how some here think they wouldn't be used more by criminals if there were a few hundred thousand of them in the country.
it's easy to see that most of you guys spend way to much time watching T.V as this seams to be most of where your information on criminals stem from,most hard core criminals prefer a short 12gage for very practical reasons the biggest one is that it is dam near impossible to trace the shot to any gun wear it is a fact that they can match a bullet to what ever weapon fired it. this is a big thing for a defends lawyer as being caught with a shot gun in your hands right after a crime is still a long ways from proving you did it where with any thing that shoots bullets can and will be traced right back to the weapon that fired the bullets.
Reply With Quote
  #261  
Old 11-22-2011, 01:20 PM
Okotokian's Avatar
Okotokian Okotokian is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Uh, guess? :)
Posts: 26,739
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonnie View Post
it's easy to see that most of you guys spend way to much time watching T.V as this seams to be most of where your information on criminals stem from,most hard core criminals prefer a short 12gage .
Actually of the top ten firearms used in crimes in the US, only one was not a handgun. It was a shotgun, but only came in at #5.

But I digress... and you guys are painting me into a corner I'm not trying to defend! LOL I only said I'd prefer keeping SOME weapons (like fully automatic weapons) prohibited. I'm not arguing for tighter restrictions on handguns. Sheesh. LOL

Last edited by Okotokian; 11-22-2011 at 01:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #262  
Old 11-22-2011, 01:41 PM
Camp Cook Camp Cook is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: BC
Posts: 217
Default

and I see it as I am a law abiding Canadian citizen = I should not be limited from owning any firearm I choose to own or shoot.

There should not be a classes of firearms there should be classes of people ie criminals that should be restricted from owning firearms but who am I kidding criminals do not follow laws anyway...
Reply With Quote
  #263  
Old 11-22-2011, 01:47 PM
Okotokian's Avatar
Okotokian Okotokian is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Uh, guess? :)
Posts: 26,739
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp Cook View Post
and I see it as I am a law abiding Canadian citizen = I should not be limited from owning any firearm I choose to own or shoot.

There should not be a classes of firearms there should be classes of people ie criminals that should be restricted from owning firearms but who am I kidding criminals do not follow laws anyway...
So no limit on any sort of weapon at all? Interesting. So there is no point up the ladder at which you would ever say "Ok, people shouldn't be able to own THAT"... explosives? Bazookas? Anti-tank or anti-aircraft missles? chemical or biological weapons... Does the "I'm a law-abiding guy" principle hold right up the chain?
Reply With Quote
  #264  
Old 11-22-2011, 01:54 PM
Camp Cook Camp Cook is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: BC
Posts: 217
Default

WOW talk about stretching it...

and I want a Panzer would be cool to blow a few trees up at 2000 yards...
Reply With Quote
  #265  
Old 11-22-2011, 01:57 PM
Scar270 Scar270 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 468
Default

Why not? Explosives used to be readily available at every hardware store. Dynamite used to be a common farm item.

I know people with the land to safely use bazooka's if they chose to do so. Strangely enough I don't think most large scale artillery is restricted. I'm reasonably certain you can own all the cannons you want. Hopefully someone can provide more details on that, I'm sure there are a couple cannon owners on here.

It all goes back to the fact, if your too dangerous to be trusted with a firearm, you are too dangerous to be allowed among the public unsupervised.

Edit: I'd love to have a panzer, unfortunately I don't think I'll ever have the money.
Reply With Quote
  #266  
Old 11-22-2011, 02:01 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,842
Default

Quote:
There should not be a classes of firearms there should be classes of people ie criminals that should be restricted from owning firearms but who am I kidding criminals do not follow laws anyway...
And our courts can be full of surprises. It's an old case, but it is interesting reading.

Quote:
THE JOURNAL
Latest News



Guns needed for defence
judge: Government officials ordered to award firearms licence to suicidal alcoholic

Gordon Kent
The Edmonton Journal


Tuesday, March 16, 2004





EDMONTON - Ordinary Canadians need guns to defend themselves from wild animals or from "homicidal rapists or robbers," says an Alberta judge who ordered government officials to grant a firearms licence to a woman they thought was a suicidal alcoholic.

People living in "the coniferous forests of rural Canada" are sometimes killed by bears and cougars if they don't have guns to protect themselves, provincial court Judge Don Demetrick said in a written judgment released Monday.

"Similarly, in the concrete jungles of urban Canada, ordinary persons sometimes urgently require a firearm for use in lawful self-protection against the lethal attack of two-legged predators such as homicidal rapists or robbers, and of those mentally ill persons who on rare occasion engage in mass homicide for no rational reason," he wrote.

"Decent but defenceless urbanites die annually in Canada as innocent victims of criminal or mentally deranged violence in circumstances where their timely and lawful use of a firearm could have prevented or reduced the tragedy."

The St. Paul judge also took a shot at the federal Firearms Act, saying it forces Canadians who want to own guns "to endure ... a gauntlet of bureaucratic scrutiny and the time-consuming inconvenience of obtaining an official permit."

Demetrick made the comments in overturning a decision by Alberta firearms officer Richard Clarke to deny Brenda Pogson a firearms possession and acquisition licence.

In a refusal notice written last March, Clarke stated that giving the 40-year-old moose hunter a licence wasn't safe because she had an alcohol problem and an assault conviction, and had been treated for psychological problems.

Clarke's notice said the woman had three hospital visits in 2000.

"You were intoxicated each time and there were suicidal concerns," the judge quoted him as saying.

An RCMP officer said he could not recall a single day in the summer of 2000 when Pogson was sober, Clarke said in his notice.

The northern Alberta woman's application, made in 2001, was not supported by police, Clarke said.

But the judge ruled the opinion of police officers is not relevant in such situations, while Clarke's information about Pogson's mental health was old and unreliable.

He was more impressed with her evidence at a hearing in Lac La Biche last December, when Pogson said she told a police officer she was going to commit suicide to avoid being put in a cell for being drunk.

She testified she had been sober for six months and was coping with depression.

"The officer brought forth no evidence in the ... hearing that refuted the essence of what Pogson said about recent positive changes in her personal circumstances," the judge wrote.

Jan Reimer, provincial co-ordinator of the Alberta Council of Women's Shelters, said there's no proof guns keep people safe.

"We know from the experience in the United States that when everyone has a gun ... the more people are killed," she said, adding suicide is far more common in homes where there are firearms.

Demetrick went to great lengths in his 10-page ruling to point out the possible harm people face if they are not allowed to possess firearms.

A prohibition could, for example, prevent someone from owning family heirlooms, such as "a pistol carried by that applicant's war hero father while fighting in World War II to preserve freedom and democracy at the behest of the government of Canada."

The judge was concerned Pogson never had a chance to refute negative information which Clarke, a retired police officer, had learned about her.

People might argue a fair hearing with a firearms officer is not needed, "especially those Canadians who wish to abolish the private ownership of firearms and who begrudge recognizing any firearms-related rights for ordinary Canadians," he said.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #267  
Old 11-22-2011, 02:04 PM
Lonnie Lonnie is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,709
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Okotokian View Post
Actually of the top ten firearms used in crimes in the US, only one was not a handgun. It was a shotgun, but only came in at #5.

But I digress... and you guys are painting me into a corner I'm not trying to defend! LOL I only said I'd prefer keeping SOME weapons (like fully automatic weapons) prohibited. I'm not arguing for tighter restrictions on handguns. Sheesh. LOL
full auto IMO are the most useless thing ever invented but they should not be prohibited. as they are no more dangerous than any other gun. maybe put them on the restricted list.and remove most if not all handguns from the restricted list and just keep them on a registered list. or better yet just scrap the handgun regestrey along with the long gun regestery.

Last edited by Lonnie; 11-22-2011 at 02:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #268  
Old 11-22-2011, 02:16 PM
Tactical Lever Tactical Lever is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Fox Creek
Posts: 3,315
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonnie View Post
full auto IMO are the most useless thing ever invented but they should not be prohibited. as they are no more dangerous than any other gun. maybe put them on the restricted list.and remove most if not all handguns from the restricted list and just keep them on a registered list.
We've had a centralized pistol registry for over 3/4 of a century. Name 2 people who's lives it saved.

I would say that it's cost more than a few over the years, as it was used as a tool to confiscate and prohibit half the pistols in Canada. Many people decided not to jump through the hoops and went without a pistol.

And many an unarmed jogger, or camper has fallen prey to predators both 2 legged and 4 legged for lack of a suitable weapon.
Reply With Quote
  #269  
Old 11-22-2011, 02:19 PM
Tactical Lever Tactical Lever is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Fox Creek
Posts: 3,315
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Okotokian View Post
Actually of the top ten firearms used in crimes in the US, only one was not a handgun. It was a shotgun, but only came in at #5.

But I digress... and you guys are painting me into a corner I'm not trying to defend! LOL I only said I'd prefer keeping SOME weapons (like fully automatic weapons) prohibited. I'm not arguing for tighter restrictions on handguns. Sheesh. LOL
As I noted in an earlier post, the prohibited status did nothing to prevent a hit in a restaurant in the sleepy south end of Edmonton. They used full autos.
Reply With Quote
  #270  
Old 11-22-2011, 02:28 PM
Tactical Lever Tactical Lever is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Fox Creek
Posts: 3,315
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Okotokian View Post
Uh, see comment above, and you tell me why we aren't having a spree of crimes committed in theis country with machine guns and bazookas. From the arguments you guys put forward any garden variety criminal can get any weapons he wants in an instant. If that is the case, where are they all? Could they be.... gasp... perhaps difficult to obtain?

Sorry guys, not buying tha argument that prohibiting weapons makes not a bit of difference to their proliferation. You don't have any facts to back it up.
I've known a few people who were able to get pistols without actually having a license. And they usually don't have to search too hard.

Law abiding Canadians aren't the only source of guns you know. Mexico has very strict gun laws, yet somehow the gangs slaughter anyone that dares interfere (or talk using social media) in the street. Using the guns they have would be merciful in some of the recent cases that caught my attention. Meanwhile the law abiding cower, defenseless.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.