[PublicAnimalNo9]

Well, that and the typo "taping" instead of "tapping" prolly didn't help the misunderstanding either

[bootlegga]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

bootlegga bootlegga:

2Cdo 2Cdo:

But when someone tries to use it to score points in a debate it is more than fair game to throw it back at them. Obviously boot doesn't know as much about firearms as he thinks he does.

You have no idea how much I know or don't know. Talk about someone trying to score points...

As do you, but I get a good impression when someone doesn't understand terms used for types of fire.

Bye, bye.

Ahh, the classic dismissal response. Whatever.

Don't bother to respond to any more of my posts then and I'll do the same for you.

Thank you for participating!

[BartSimpson]

bootlegga bootlegga:

If you were the average person in Canada Bart (a former sniper), than those weapons would probably be prohibited too.

You're not making sense. If the average person in Canada was a properly trained shooter with a sound mental capacity, why would you ban rifles?

You're solving a problem that doesn't exist.

May as well ban firetrucks to prevent fires. It'll do as much.

[uwish]

Unfortunately in Canada, it is much easier to pick on the law abiding than the criminals. It happens in many ways and not only to gun owners.

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

If you were the average person in Canada Bart (a former sniper), than those weapons would probably be prohibited too.

You're not making sense. If the average person in Canada was a properly trained shooter with a sound mental capacity, why would you ban rifles?

You're solving a problem that doesn't exist.

May as well ban firetrucks to prevent fires. It'll do as much.

No, my point was that if everyone was a former sniper like you (assuming you're not BSing us), the sentiment in Canada would be to ban all long arms.

That's not my POV, just what I think the mainstream POV would be.

I have no problem with hunting rifles and shotguns, just military weapons in the hands of civilians.

I'd be be in favour of civilians (say gun collectors) owning military weapons as long as they were willing to have the gun made totally and forever inoperable. Of course, not many 'collectors' would be willing to do that, so I guess in the case of all or nothing, it's nothing.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

uwish uwish:

Unfortunately in Canada, it is much easier to pick on the law abiding than the criminals. It happens in many ways and not only to gun owners.

Annndddd here we go. Haul out the ol' victim card. Works for the natives so I guess why not eh?

"I'm being suppressed because society don't want me walking around armed."

Funny how so many that are against handguns and assault rifles are ALSO law-abiding citizens. And golly gee, some of them even own rifles and/or shotguns themselves.
If Canadians wanted to be able to walk around armed, or let others do so if they wished, or own assault weapons, then more than just the comparitively few handgun and assault weapon owners would be squawking about it.

[bootlegga]

uwish uwish:

Unfortunately in Canada, it is much easier to pick on the law abiding than the criminals. It happens in many ways and not only to gun owners.

IMO, it has nothing to do with whether or not you are law abiding, it's simply the limits society allows to people. Society sets all sorts of limits on all sorts of things; what types of cars are allowed on the road, what additives can be put in the food you eat, how much pollution a factory is allowed to produce, etc.

If you don't like the laws, then elect a government to change them. As the Conservatives don't appear interested in allowing every Tom, Dick and Harry to own assault rifles, you probably need to start your own party.

[uwish]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

uwish uwish:

Unfortunately in Canada, it is much easier to pick on the law abiding than the criminals. It happens in many ways and not only to gun owners.

Annndddd here we go. Haul out the ol' victim card. Works for the natives so I guess why not eh?

"I'm being suppressed because society don't want me walking around armed."

Funny how so many that are against handguns and assault rifles are ALSO law-abiding citizens. And golly gee, some of them even own rifles and/or shotguns themselves.
If Canadians wanted to be able to walk around armed, or let others do so if they wished, or own assault weapons, then more than just the comparitively few handgun and assault weapon owners would be squawking about it.

wrong again, that was a general statement about the logic used, it was not directed at gun owners etc in particular. In Calgary for example, they started charging for parking at the park n rides lots because they admitted to many people were taking the train and not paying. So they are punishing everyone instead of enforcing the current laws. Making everyone pay more for the few that choose to break the rules.

That is what I meant. I was not playing the victims card, at least it was not my intent.

[BartSimpson]

bootlegga bootlegga:

No, my point was that if everyone was a former sniper like you (assuming you're not BSing us), the sentiment in Canada would be to ban all long arms.

Your anti-gun bias is clouding your judgment. If 51% of Canadians were qualified shooters then why would those people want to ban long arms? Maybe the minority of pussies would want to do so, but the 'mainstream sentiment' would not favor such a thing if the mainstream Canadian can be defined as a shooter.

bootlegga bootlegga:

That's not my POV, just what I think the mainstream POV would be.

I have no problem with hunting rifles and shotguns, just military weapons in the hands of civilians.

Fine. But the problem is that you have been supporting a law that defines non-military weapons as military weapons.

bootlegga bootlegga:

I'd be be in favour of civilians (say gun collectors) owning military weapons as long as they were willing to have the gun made totally and forever inoperable. Of course, not many 'collectors' would be willing to do that, so I guess in the case of all or nothing, it's nothing.

Why? Plenty of people own muskets and repeaters and revolvers and muzzle-loaders that are former military weapons and no one is using them to commit crimes so why should a collector have to destroy the function of any other historic piece?

[ASLplease]

Just wondering....all of these 'now illegal firearms'......did any of them cause a law abiding gun owner to get possessed by 'evil' thereby they went on a shooting spree?

[fifeboy]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Maybe you should take your own advice about snarky replies...

I would if I honestly cared, but all I see in this thread from those who think this is a good idea is a fear of firearms, and a fear of LEGAL gun owners.

Well, here we are again. I wonder if this one will outlast 75 pages? Now 2Cdo brings up, for probably the 250th time (by various people), the idea that people who do not want to see the ownership of automatic weapons and carrying handguns in public are living in fear of firearms and LEGAL gun owners. So I ask the question. Do you guys live in fear of hunting and other sporting weapons owned by registered owners and kept locked in safes when not in use?

My answer is NO, I do not fear them and own and use my own firearms.

WHAT SAY YE

To explain, again, I am not opposed to: a) hunting weapons as defined by the Government of Canada b) target firearms c)collectors of weapons, including automatic weapons that has been permanently disabled.

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

No, my point was that if everyone was a former sniper like you (assuming you're not BSing us), the sentiment in Canada would be to ban all long arms.

Your anti-gun bias is clouding your judgment. If 51% of Canadians were qualified shooters then why would those people want to ban long arms? Maybe the minority of pussies would want to do so, but the 'mainstream sentiment' would not favor such a thing if the mainstream Canadian can be defined as a shooter.

Anti-assault rifle is not anti-gun for about the millionth time.

Your point though makes sense on the surface. I meant if every gun owner was a sniper. Unfortunately, the whiners in Toronto and Montreal and other places would probably still outnumber the gun owners, so again, a long arm ban would likely be in place.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

That's not my POV, just what I think the mainstream POV would be.

I have no problem with hunting rifles and shotguns, just military weapons in the hands of civilians.

Fine. But the problem is that you have been supporting a law that defines non-military weapons as military weapons.

That's your opinion because of your military experience. I wonder if you would think that way if your specialty was something other than sniper.

Most Canadians however, if shown an AK-47 and a 30-06 rifle and asked which is okay for gun owners to possess, many would say the 30-06 is okay and not the AK-47. However, it is still legal to own an assault rifle in Canada (the AR-15 - remember the link I provided a few pages back?), just not the Norinco 97-A or a variety of other assault rifles.

So as far as I see it, Canadians have the best of both worlds. Those who want assault rifles can uy AR-15s and the other more dangerous guns are banned.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

I'd be be in favour of civilians (say gun collectors) owning military weapons as long as they were willing to have the gun made totally and forever inoperable. Of course, not many 'collectors' would be willing to do that, so I guess in the case of all or nothing, it's nothing.

Why? Plenty of people own muskets and repeaters and revolvers and muzzle-loaders that are former military weapons and no one is using them to commit crimes so why should a collector have to destroy the function of any other historic piece?

I wouldn't have a problem with someone owning a functional Brown Bess or some other thing, but I'd be totally against someone owning a functional MG42 (or a Thompson like you do). They aren't even comparable when it comes to lethality.

[BartSimpson]

bootlegga bootlegga:

I wouldn't have a problem with someone owning a functional Brown Bess or some other thing, but I'd be totally against someone owning a functional MG42 (or a Thompson like you do). They aren't even comparable when it comes to lethality.

But you're okay with, say, a Ruger 10 .22?

The following is legal in Canada, just so you know.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=szGoeqIFytQ

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

I wouldn't have a problem with someone owning a functional Brown Bess or some other thing, but I'd be totally against someone owning a functional MG42 (or a Thompson like you do). They aren't even comparable when it comes to lethality.

But you're okay with, say, a Ruger 10 .22?

The following is legal in Canada, just so you know.

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

Actually, given its rate of fire, one modified like that that would NOT be legal.

My point was that comparing a gunpowder weapons from the 17th century with one of today's full auto assault rifles is similar to comparing a hand grenade and an atomic bomb. Like I said, way different in the lethality department.

[DeBoom]

Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:

Criminals are actively pursued by the law and guns are confiscated. No one just let's criminals run the hell around.

Yes they are but diverting resources away from that to regulating law abiding gun owners is a misuse of resources and doesn't help the problem. Despite the best efforts of police thousands of guns are illegal sold, carried and brought in from the US. Gun control is ineffective at stopping criminals from getting and using guns and an ineffective law that restricts law abiding citizens is a bad law.

$1:

People don't feel safe around guns because they are used to immediately end life in a quick and violent way. Life happens once. Our society respects life. Just as we don't want kids standing on train tracks, why would we want a kid touch a gun?

People are scared because their only exposure to a gun is when they see a shooting on the 6 o'clock news. And once again a knife can be used to immediately end life in a quick and violent way. I don't see why your hoplophobia should necessitate limiting my ability to own a firearm. Not even 1% of legal guns are ever used in a crime and only a small fraction of those will actually kill someone. I don't see we need to ban something that more than 99% are used without incident. The ratio of motor vehicles to traffic deaths is four times larger than of guns to firearm homicides. Restrictions on guns is out of proportion to the risk caused to society.

Further more the mere presence of a gun is not a threat to life. Switzerland has a very high rate of gun ownership yet has an extremely low murder rate. The problem stems from in adequate social conditions, the drug trade and gangs not the presences of firearms. And banning gun ownership certainly doesn't solve anything or Jamaica would have the worlds lowest murder rate yet it is ranked #3 for murders per capita, which is 21 spots higher than "gun crazy US" and 53 spots above Switzerland (which BTW has civilians keeping automatic weapons in their house).

As for letting a kid touch a gun I would be okay with that as long as it was under proper supervision.

$1:

And this stems back to the point that there are many dangerous things that the Canadian government forbids from us. You can't own a dead body for example, just because you want to dress it up and take it on dates. Nor can you have a bucket of nuclear waste in your backyard because it keeps the mosquitoes away.

So you agree that use matters more than purpose?

Unlike the two examples you listed firearms actually have a use and are not by themselves dangerous the way rotting corpses and radioactive materials are. Guns can be used for target shooting, hunting, farming animals, sports and self defense. These are entirely legitimate reasons to own guns that don't apply to corpses and nuclear waste.

$1:

Accidents happen with guns. They are extremely lethal and extremely effective. Accidents can happen once.

IIRC there are only about 15-20 accidental gun deaths a year. Each is a tragedy but that pales in comparison to swimming pools, cars, fires and poisonings. How about tackling those before focusing on firearms. And once again I will reiterate that shooting sports are one of the safest sports out there.

$1:

A knife is not as effective as automatic gun unless you're a ninja. Let's keep that one clear.

A knife never jams, runs out of ammo, is easy to conceal, is silent and can cause wounds as deadly as any gun shot. Knives kill as many people as guns do so they can hardly be that ineffective.

$1:

And a gun is a easier professional tool. It is easily used, very effective, and very deadly. A person would understand the logical advantages of the automatic gun if they were planning to kill people. Why engrave pictures in a cave wall if you have Photoshop?

The main thing an automatic is good for is putting bullets everywhere but the target. As I have said before an automatic is no more dangerous then a semi-auto but it does use way more bullets. For the same number of rounds a semi automatic will kill more than an automatic.

$1:

It would affect them in the sense that it lowers their chances of killing, their effectiveness at killing, their intimidation, and slowly reduce them nothing to a bunch of punk clowns with ineffective weaponry. Easier to stop. Easier to discourage.

It might take more effort but if someone is determined to kill you it doesn't matter what they have available they will find a way using what ever tools they have at their disposal. And how exactly would it make them easier to stop? Police aren't around for most crimes and you don't want civilians owning weapons to protect themselves.

$1:

How about the safe heroin owner who only sprays the stuff on her lawn to help the roses grow bigger with proper safety precautions, didn't use it on herself, then locks up the rest in a heroin safe the rest of the time? Is it okay for this person to own and collect that dangerous substance?

Considering I am generally in favor of drug legalization I would have to say yes. And even if I wasn't the hypothetical gardener isn't causing any harm and is being safe so I really don't see the problem.