Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
I'll try to respond to your points
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.
|
I don't have a problem with it as far as it being available for the reason that many enthusiasts already use these courses and it hasnt shown to be a contributing problem. Many people in NA are active in various shooting sports such as 3 gun where that sort of training helps people compete in their sport. Yes I understand that its not the equivalent to military training but its never advertised to be used as such. If there was a capable gov't program that would ensure proper training, periodic testing, and licencing I would not be opposed to certain members of the public being allowed to ccw in public places in Canada.
Of course I agree that the consistent training that is effective is the white whale and is the crux of the argument.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I would expect much more strict regulation in terms on CC, especially in public places. If it was allowed, I would be in agreement on this point.
Quote:
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.
|
I'm sure you already know that in Canada we go through this process. Of course it's not as strict as what I feel you are implying in your second paragraph. As far as gov't forms go though the application for licence in Canada is about as personally intrusive as you can get. Divulge past relationship history, family medical history... nevermind the character references needed or the daily background checks run on over 2 million Canadians.
The problem with our ineffective licencing system is it creates more paper criminals than it does stop actual gun crime.
I'm thankful we do not have a "gun problem" in Canada but do not agree with being vetted and constantly scrutinized when I have never done anything wrong and IMO the current licencing system does more to expose our lack of property rights in Canada than it does to stop crime.
However, currently thems the rules so we have to play by them.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Yeah I did pick the stories with the feel good endings. I realize it doesn't always end that way but it never ends well when the only guy armed is the nutjob trying to set a new mass killing record. There is no question why this crap keeps happening in gun free zones.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I would agree, and there are many instances where CCW carriers have diffused situations without ever firing a round.
Quote:
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?
|
He threatened to blow the neighbors head off. He didn't, however he set fire to his property. Even if a gun was/wasn't present this guy still took it on upon himself to set fire to his neighbors place, no protocol is gonna fix that.
If we are trying to use proper certification protocol to control these situations then why do we always qualify the much needed system by proposing a scenario where humans are prone to snapping and having a conveniently available gun?
Will such a restrictive system that is implemented stop the unpredictable situation that is always constructed to propel the argument in the first place?
Quote:
|
But the answer besides the above is looking at rural policing is handled. but that's a whole other kettle of fish.
|
Agreed.
Quote:
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.
|
Earlier I mentioned one part of the sport some shooters are involved in, 3 gun. The magazine restriction nearly destroyed the sport. Again we are talking about impacting people who have never committed criminal offenses, have only done the proper and legal things required by law to enjoy their sport and they are the sole ones who feel the impact from magazine restrictions.
Lets be honest, criminals do not give a damn about magazine restrictions and if they are gonna break the law and use a firearm in a crime a rivet isn't gonna stop the 5 round legal magazine from becoming a standard capacity 30 round magazine.
But what law abiding licensed who only wants to enjoy their sport and not be bothered is gonna break the law and pull rivets, and risk criminal charges? Nobody. So again magazine restriction laws only hurt the law abiding.
And even if they were not altered back to their original state, whats to stop anyone from doing a mag change?
I honestly think the magazine restriction laws are arbitrarily used simply because the legal gun owners in this country are low hanging fruit, and to the average person with no involvement in the sport, they will see it as being a progressive move to fix manufactured problems. Its a political pawn used to make gov't look like they are doing something to tackle crime when we all know a rivet isn't gonna stop a criminal with five seconds of free time on their hands.
Quote:
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.
|
I personally agree with your first paragraph here. However many people, especially americans would not agree.
Honestly I think using (since its the topic du jour) a centerfire rifle INSIDE a home for defense is bad judgement. Way too much penetration power. Shotgun would be much more effective, wouldn't pose a threat to those outside of your home and reduce the chance of blowing threw multiple layers of drywall and hurting someone you love.
I would hope to hell noone would ever have to experience this.
Again the 21 foot rule with a knife comes up. I agree that using a firearm inside your home would be ideally the last viable option. Theres only one possession in the house thats of any real value, but if you are at risk and your rights have been violated in the first place... sorry but I can't get behind the idea of people being lawfully obligated to lay down and die.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Ok now wait. I gotta ask you on this one. What qualifies as an assault
style weapon now? Are we talking about the appearance? I only ask because true assault weapons are not legal here. We have military models and civilian models already for most firearms that have ever been deployed anyways. Most of these civilian models have already been prohibited or restricted in Canada. Hell, some firearms have been banned based on looks alone. Again, the general public has been deluded into thinking that any firearm with features that mortify liberals such as pistol grips, sheet metal receivers, flash hiders, and detachable box magazines are inherent baby killers and somehow have the ability to change the morals of the people who own them. Its such a fallacy but it seems to be the object of the anti gunners agenda right now. Usually such bills are exposed for the refuse they are the minute they are tried to be pushed through by their writers. Lord knows we have enough shoulder things that go up on the streets, wouldn't want any more.
If a tipping point came to society down south where the citizens of the nation felt compelled to exercise their 2nd amd right and overthrow what would have to become a tyrannical gov't, then it would be naive to think regular folks with their small arms would thrash the largest military on the face of the earth.
I also think its naive to think if such a situation occurred, that military personnel would fire upon their countrymen that they swore to protect. Pretty tough to run that big operation when the boots on the ground realize their being asked to shoot mom and dad down in the streets.
Quote:
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 thought a while back I seen a estimated number from the border agency placing the number of illegally transported hand guns into Canada as being somewhere around the 20000 mark per year. Agreed that if you wanted to make legislation that would actually protect Canadians this is a good place to start.
These guns go straight to gang members, those in the drug trade, ect. Valid, lawful gun owners in Canada are not the ones buying these. Hell how would you even go about it? "Hello, hells angels? Yes I'm interested in a illegal handgun, even though mere possession could potentially destroy my life. Thanks."
I'm in 100% agreement with you. Use a gun in a crime against others, kiss your free life goodbye.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I think the situation is a mess, but I honestly do not know how you rewrite the constitution without creating a giant s#@$ storm and
still have the task of trying to round up and eliminate all those firearms that for the most part, noone knows where they are located. Its unenforcible, impractical and would again only deprive those who are law abiding of their property since we all know criminals are not gonna hand their guns over.
Quote:
|
Do you need to have ammo with the collection?
|
Yes
Quote:
|
Do the weapons have to be activated to maintain their value?
|
Yes
Quote:
|
Lets ask if they're collections or weapons.
|
I would say they are simply firearms that get used.
Quote:
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.
|
I really have to disagree. I know people who hunt with their M1's. I do agree some pieces are not practical to use anyways, while still being valid in collections.
Im sorry my answers are getting short, I don't want to come across as rude but I'm honestly getting crosseyed from staring at the screen and need to sign off on this for now.
I did want to delve a little deeper into what qualifies as military collections and civilian variants with you, but again I'm spent. Between the swiss arms debacle, and now the cz 858 reclassification I'm gonna be busy writing more letters on this subject the next few days anyways. Again I appreciate your insight and rational points, even if we don't/won't agree.
Quote:
|
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.
|
