[CaptainCrunch]

I'll try to respond to your points

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

Blather on, your input is well thought out and more than welcome.

I get and totally understand the points you make. No amount of civilian training can equate to what you would receive in the military. Even though there are many groups that train civilians for tactical scenarios, self defense or other applications, run by former military personnel. Hell, 1/3 of the US "boots on the ground" funding goes to PMC's. I get that living and breathing military training is something you cannot replicate.

However we are talking about lone active shooters in a public environment. These situations are not being played out in the battlefield against other lawful combatants.

I don't have a trust in any situation where a deadly weapon is in play if the training isn't highly consistent and completely thorough.

I guess that's a big problem that I have with private companies of different sorts doing the training, especially with the training intending on letting people use fire arms outside of hunting or target shooting situations.

We all know that private companies will cut corners to make profit, that's why they're in business, so you either have to force a consistant curriculum on all of them, or create this huge bureaucracy to make sure that the standards are being met.

And chances are that I still wouldn't be all that comfortable with people carrying guns around in public or teachers being armed in schools etc.

Here's the other question with that. Lets say that we got a consistent program throughout all the schools, the next logical step would have to be a created and linked database to make sure that the people that failed these courses or showed instability mentally wouldn't be able to buy fire arms. As well, if you want to make me comfortable, make every first time gun buyer under go a psychiatric evaluation, the results of which are publicly available to gun vendors and the police.

What I am talking about is a proper and in depth certification program before you're allowed to carry a fire arm in public.

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

I understand what you are talking about when you explain the urgency, fear and panic in a combat scenario. But to assume civilians are trigger happy, unable to execute judgement in regards to surroundings and the situation at hand isnt fair. People (at least in the US) defend their homes against intruders regularly. Unfortunately. Public shootings being stopped by civilians with good judgement happens as well. Off hand, a shooting at a middle school in Texas (I believe) was stopped by the principal after he SHOWED his handgun to the shooter. He held his fire. Still he was able to diffuse the situation. Another story from a year ago or so, a man shot his neighbor, and after police were called to deal with him he holed himself up against a car and had a standoff with police shooting at them and others. Another neighbor, who had clear view of him and knew nothing was behind the shooter, used his snub nosed revolver to drop the shooter from over 125 yards. Thats an incredible shot. The police claimed the man to be a hero, saying he saved many officers lives that day. I don't have the links to the stories off hand but I can dig them up if you would like.

I think that this is a bit of cherry picking though, you've picked stories with happy endings. We've seen stories of home defenses that have gone horribly wrong. We've also seen stories of missed bullets killing innocent people. It just goes to logic that if you increase the number of people carrying guns out there that think its ok to intervene that the number of tragedies will probably outstrip the success stories, because the number of incompetent or mentally un prepared people outstrip the number of people that are capable.

I know that its sounding like I'm punishing the good because of the bad, but when your dealing with a weapon designed to fire a round at sub to super sonic speed with no control when it leaves the barrel I think discretion is the better part of valor.

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

I think the issue for "the gun lobby" is that concerted efforts are being made to neuter peoples ability, and right to self defense. A bullet travels much faster than a phone call to the police, and they can't be everywhere at once. A man in Ontario, a firearms instructor, lives in a rural area. His neighbor flips out one day, sets fire to his property and threatens to "blow the guys head off" Subsequently police are called, and take over 1.5 hours to arrive. This guy is currently jumping through the legal hoops in order to be able to legally carry his pistol as its obvious the police cannot protect him. So should people just lay down and die because they shouldn't be allowed to have the right to self defense? Should we entrust the police, who in this case are over 1.5 hours away, to protect us?

Thats more an issue with enforcement and policing then anything else. I get what your saying, and I don't really have a great answer to this without putting in some more thought.

But the questions that I have. This neighbor clearly had issues, in a perfect world he shouldn't be allowed to own a fire arm, now that's not necessarily going to happen, we've seen people spontaneously snap. But don't you think that a proper gun owner certification protocol instead of everyone can own a gun because of right to self defense would reduce the rage induced I'm going to solve my problems with this now conveniently owned gun?

But the answer besides the above is looking at rural policing is handled. but that's a whole other kettle of fish.

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

When you talk about banning all guns except for bolt action rifles and shotguns, are you talking about magazine fed firearms as well? Basically the Australian model? The majority of shotguns used to hunt waterfowl are semi automatic, many hunters use semi autos to take their game every year, and I would guess that over 90-95% of the hunting rifles available in Canada are magazine fed. You would want those banned as well? Basically anything outside of breach actions or single shot bolts? I don't understand why their is such a concerted effort to take away semi auto rifles as if they are the pinnacle of the gun controls ire. The recent navy yard shooting was committed with a typical rem 870 pump shotgun. The most common shotgun in the world. Should we ban those too?

I'll grant you this, however we are talking about the differences here between lets say a 3 to 5 round magazine and a 30 round or more magazine which I believe is UN-neccessary. I still don't have a problem with banning semi-automatics.

Take away magazine fed pistols and take away any capacity larger then 10 rounds in a rifle and you're not impacting peoples rights to arm themselves. I don't really see why in hunting a semi auto rifle or a more then 3 to 5 round capacity weapon is necessary.

In terms of self defense, if you're in your house and you hear a noise, your probable first instinct shouldn't be to pick up a gun and go towards the intruder. If someone has broken in to you're house and are armed with a gun, chances are pretty good that they're committed to using it if the circumstances warrant. They're also far more alert then any home owner is. Plus a home is notorious short range territory and there are lots and lots of non lethal alternatives that would work just as well.

Also in terms of home defense a lot of what we see are chasing down and killing the bad guy after he's fled or left the home, I believe I read a comparison of home defense cases where the majority of the deaths to the shootee were actually in the yard or front lawn.

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

I guess I don't understand why the anti gun lobby thinks its imperative to go after so called assault rifles. Especially when they make up but a fraction of gun crimes committed in the US. Millions of them are present on NA soil and they are simply not a problem. Mental health and social issues need to be examined before draconian bans are placed on certain firearms. Tighter border security for example would help reduce the gross amount of illegal handguns being transported into Canada. These guns make up the vast majority of gun crime in Canada, yet imposing more laws in Canada that hurt the law abiding do NOTHING to stop this, or stop the main issue, which is the criminal element.

Assault style weapons are not designed to be hobby guns, they are designed to put a lot of bullets on target accurately very fast, especially in a semi automatic firing mode. I just really don't see the need for average Joe Citizen to own them. And if it comes around to some kind of evil federal government being fought by plucky insurrectionists holding the constitution in one hand and a M-16 in the other, I'm going to Vegas to lay bets on the government winning.

you are hugely right in terms of border security and going after illegal guns, I also think that there needs to be international pressure on the Chinese and the Indians and the other nations with government controlled weapons manufacturing who don't care where their guns end up and so we see cheap AK-47's and Uzi knockoffs and other weapons turning up in the hands of gang bangers.

I am in full agreement of minimum sentences for gun crimes, I am of a mind set that if your a gang member and you use a gun in a crime we ship you to a prison in the arctic that you don't leave.

I am certainly of the mind set that the American government and the gun lobby's have their priorities completely messed up on this and that the 2nd amendment is in need of a huge update.

Originally Posted by Shnabdabber

Captain Crunch I appreciate your opinion and even though my reply may not seem like it I do agree with you. No amount of training can replicate or prepare people for the kind of things you have trained for in the military. Agree 100%. However I do not agree that confiscation or banning of firearms is the answer.

One other quick question I have for you. You say you support the banning of all firearms outside of bolt action rifles and shotguns. What are your thoughts on collectors who have historic models and have invested a great deal of time and money into their investments. Say for example, the magazine fed Lee Enfield, perhaps the most common and available centerfire sporting rifle in Canada? The M1 Garand? A firearm designed by a Canadian which General Patton proclaimed as the greatest tool ever used in the field, which he attributed to the winning of the second World war?

[/quote]

Do you need to have ammo with the collection?

Do the weapons have to be activated to maintain their value?

Lets ask if they're collections or weapons.

I have no problem with a collection if ammo for some of these weapons is stored off site.

Or you can display with for example the breech block removed and stored in a safe.

But they don't really need to be activated or loaded to be a collector piece.

By now you know, I love military history, and as a habit I like to study weapons of war. I would love to collect tanks and armored vehicles, but that doesn't mean that I should have the right to have a fully armed and ready to go T-72 in my garage.