For the pro-firearm crowd.

[LauraLeigh]

Never knew guns can bring so much pleasure. I guess I need to move to the U.S. to experience it. I am just trying to show you the benefits of having a ban on guns, but then as some pointed out, there are problems with that as well. It works for some countries and then not for others.

You must have you head buried so far in the sand it's not even funny.... There are tons of collectors/ hunters/ hobby shooters in Canada... TONS.. Where the Hell do you live anyways?

ps... What are the benefits to our long gun registry? Spell them out for me please... And not the PC crap, but real tangible benefits... Again I refer to my OPP friend, who say's the long gun registry is a joke... That is only tells them guns may be in the house when they respond, and since they treat every call, esp. domestic as such, despite the stats, it really is not much help... And one that cost us taxpayers an arm, leg and our firstborn....

My father is a Game Warden, we have a neighbor/good friend who is OPP, I have some pretty decent in the field sources who feel the long gun registry was a completely wasteful and expensive failure... But after all that $$$$$ the government who implemented it will never admit that...

The project which was meant to cost approximately $119 million ended up costing over 3 billion dollars to implement.. AND The annual operating costs of the program are reported to be between $15 – $80 million

Another note...

Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino is opposed to the gun registry, stating in a press release:
We have an ongoing gun crisis including firearms-related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered, although we believe that more than half of them were smuggled into Canada from the United States. The firearms registry is long on philosophy and short on practical results considering the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives."

 

[Laurelin]

Why do you need more than 1 gun or a couple as you pointed out? Are you fighting an army of terrorists or criminals? :lol-sign:

I am not talking about banning now, I am talking about having 3 or 4 or 5 guns in your house? This is absolutely unnecessary even if you argue that you need a gun to protect yourself. Your argument is weak.

We easily have 20+ guns in the house. (I need to count again) Why? Well, we have more than one person that shoots (Which is why we have FOUR .22 rifles) and you DON'T use the same kind of gun to shoot sporting clays that you use to hunt deer or you use as self defense, etc... Plus, my father collects guns. It interests him and they are some of his most prized possessions. He has guns his grandad owned and guns his dad gave him as a kid. He never shoots them anymore but they're important to him.

Never knew guns can bring so much pleasure. I guess I need to move to the U.S. to experience it. I am just trying to show you the benefits of having a ban on guns, but then as some pointed out, there are problems with that as well. It works for some countries and then not for others.

My father greatly enjoys his gun collection and he uses them on a regular basis. He shoots at competitions at least twice a month. It's a hobby and one he's actually very good at. So yes, they do bring him a lot of pleasure. How would you like your hobby and passion taken away?

 

[Boxer100]

You must have you head buried so far in the sand it's not even funny.... There are tons of collectors/ hunters/ hobby shooters in Canada... TONS.. Where the Hell do you live anyways?

ps... What are the benefits to our long gun registry? Spell them out for me please... And not the PC crap, but real tangible benefits... Again I refer to my OPP friend, who say's the long gun registry is a joke... That is only tells them guns may be in the house when they respond, and since they treat every call, esp. domestic as such, despite the stats, it really is not much help... And one that cost us taxpayers an arm, leg and our firstborn....

My father is a Game Warden, we have a neighbor/good friend who is OPP, I have some pretty decent in the field sources who feel the long gun registry was a completely wasteful and expensive failure... But after all that $$$$$ the government who implemented it will never admit that...

Another note...

So far we had a gun registry and not a lot of crime. So I think it works although it does cost taxpayers money. If you want to allow anyone to get guns in Canada, then that is your opinion. I admit, there are advantages and disadvantages to it but apparently you are too focused on the disadvantages of banning guns and not looking at the advantages. If you think that I'm closed-minded on this matter, then you are as well.

 

[LauraLeigh]

So far we had a gun registry and not a lot of crime. So I think it works although it does cost taxpayers money. If you want to allow anyone to get guns in Canada, then that is your opinion. I admit, there are advantages and disadvantages to it but apparently you are too focused on the disadvantages of banning guns and not looking at the advantages. If you think that I'm closed-minded on this matter, then you are as well.

Crime has gone down since the registry??? Please provide proof... Cause some pretty reputable sources say that's not so...

With no thanks to the gun registry: Marginally lower firearms murder rate shows registry has had zero impact

Friday 3 October 2003

p. A16

In 1998, when the Liberals opened their vaunted gun registry, 151 Canadians were murdered with firearms. Last year, firearms were used to murder 149, as Statistics Canada reported Tuesday.

Anyone tempted by the headlines that followed StatsCan's Tuesday release --such as the National Post's "Gun-death rate hits all-time low" -- to point to the registry as the cause of these "historic" low numbers, should pause first and consider the above statistics: 151 firearms murders before the registry, 149 now.

Net effect of intrusive, error-plagued, billion-dollar registry?

Zero.

Total firearms-murder numbers jump around annually within a range of 150 to 180, largely dependent on the murderous exploits of drug and biker gangs and organized crime. In 1999, there were 165 murders by gun, 183 in 2000, 171 in 2001 and, of course, 149 last year.

The effect of gang and drug wars on these totals can been seen in the statistics from Quebec. In 2000, there were 38 gang-related homicides in that province, which at the time was witnessing a turf war between the Hell's Angels and their rivals the Rock Machine. Last year there were just six gang killings in Quebec.

In a country such as ours, with thankfully very few murders of any sort, a drop of 32 gang killings in just one province in just two years can have a significant and visible effect on overall homicide statistics. Nationwide, gang "hits" fell from 72 in 2000 to 45 in 2002. Since most gang killers use guns, gun-murder rates will drop noticeably as a result.

The rate of gun murders to overall murders can also shift in either of two ways: by gun murders falling or overall murders rising while gun murders remain constant. The latter is largely the case in these most recent numbers.

There were 558 total murders in 1998, the year in which there were 151 gun murders. Last year, when there were 149 gun murders, there were 582 total homicides. In other words, the "gun-death rate" is not down because there are fewer gun deaths since the registry opened; it's down because there are more non-gun murders being committed.

 

[Boxer100]

It's funny how now there are Google banner ads on the top of this forum advertising guns. It has nothing to do with dogs, but there are too many places where the keyword gun is used in this thread. Let's stop this debate and all live peacefully.

 

[KenyiGirl]

If guns were banned in the US, can you imagine how many people would end up dying from car accidents caused by deer? Almost every person I know goes out and gets a deer every year. I have to wonder how the government would try to solve a deer overpopulation problem...

 

[Buckshot]

What does a dog have to do with a gun? A dog is a companion and a friend. Why do you need a couple of guns to protect yourself? Are guns your companions or pets? I thought you used a gun for protection only?

I use at least 5 different rifles for different shooting disciplines. I also use shotguns and have a few handguns although I dont use them much. Who has the right over another person to dictate what they can and can not own?

 

[Snip]

I've seen people posting pictures of guns on this forum that don't look to me like they are "older antique models". Some even have semi-automatic rifles which have a stand to put them on the ground and can shoot God knows how many bullets per second. You would only use that if you want to start a war or defend yourself against an army.

Key word here is SEMI-automatic. A friend of mine has 2 or 3 now, he used to have mostly lever action rifles. problem is he has a bad wrist, so can't really work the leer anymore, whereas the semi is no issue for him.

And actually, some lever and pump action guns can shoot as fast as a semi in the hands of a skilled shooter.

As far as owning multiple guns? Here's one reason if you're a hunter....because it may e necessary by LAW for the game you are hunting. Migratory birds must be hunted using a shotgun, it's LAW. Yet in other areas, shotguns may be completely useless against a different game. In the past a lot of hunters would have a 12 gauge shotgun for the duck and goose hunt, a rimfire .22 for varmint and paper punching (cheaper ammo than the rest) maybe a smaller calibre centre fire rifle (say a .243) for wolf, or groundhog at distance, or deer in some areas, then a larger rifle such as a 30-06 or something for moose and bear.

Just like any tool, there are different reasons for different types and styles of guns.

As far as the wannabe registry, it's a joke. It's useless, overrun with cost issues, and contains a small minority of the actual guns that are out there. It's also the only time to my knowledge that law was created that turned law abiding citizens into potential felons for them not registering their guns in time. All it really is is one great big feel good piece of crap for the city slickers that vote the idiot politicians into power.

 

[Nechochwen]

And actually, some lever and pump action guns can shoot as fast as a semi in the hands of a skilled shooter.

YouTube - JERRY MICULIK FASTEST REVOLVER SHOOTER IN THE WORLD IPSC

YouTube - Fastest shooter in the world.

YouTube - Fastest gun in the west

 

[MelissaCato]

It's funny how now there are Google banner ads on the top of this forum advertising guns. It has nothing to do with dogs, but there are too many places where the keyword gun is used in this thread. Let's stop this debate and all live peacefully.

For the pro-firearm crowd.

 

[4dogs3cats]

For the pro-firearm crowd.

firearm as in.... gun?

gun gun gun??


.......gun gun?


:rofl1:

 

[Lilavati]

I used to run around with a bunch of 20th century war reenactors. These are the guys that you see on the history channel. One of them supplied for hollywood, and worked on a whole bunch of films including We Were Soldiers.

They had all the permits and several owned things like flak cannons, mortars, etc. All used for historical demonstrations. One guy even owns two half tracks, and he's trying to get a tank now. Folks may not realize this, but on those shows and in a few movies a lot of the armament is privately owned. When you consider that an MG 42 can cost upwards o f $40,000, what WWII movie is going to have the budget to buy one? They tend to rent.

And yes, they also loved to play with them. Shooting an MP 40 is just plain cool. Same thing with a fully auto AK, and MG 42s! Oh. My. Gosh. I watched someone cut down a fairly large tree with one (it was his tree if you're wondering). Wow. And it only cost him a few hundred dollars in ammunition. :rofl1:

Ok, that's pretty cool. Not my cup of tea, but pretty darn cool anyway.

I don't know about your banner ads, but I got a stock brokerage . . . a very shady one. More likely to buy a gun.

 

[Doberluv]

I said we'd disagree . Licensing a driver creates a "floor" . . . they physically how to operate a car, and they have been informed what the rules are and they have sunk in enough to pass a basic test. It doesn't do much else. However, you can refuse a license, or take one away, from someone who has proven themselves irresponsible (or unable, my grandmother just lost her drivers license, and that was actually a relief). It doesn't make anyone responsible, because nothing can. People have free will and the ability to do what they like. All it does is make sure that they were told the right way to do things, and that they haven't been seriously irresponsible in the past. But that's much better than nothing . . . to me anyway.

Having a driver's license is a privilege. Having guns is a right. There is no comparrison between the two.

I've seen people posting pictures of guns on this forum that don't look to me like they are "older antique models". Some even have semi-automatic rifles which have a stand to put them on the ground and can shoot God knows how many bullets per second. You would only use that if you want to start a war or defend yourself against an army.

A lot of bullets don't get fired per second. But that 50 cal. Barrett's bullet can travel 2700 feet per second and it can take out a lightly armored vehicle from more than a mile away. It will reach its destination faster than the sound of it being fired. Do you know how cool that is to shoot something faster than the speed of sound? It's a trip. Someone standing behind the gun looking on can see and feel the shock wave.

I have no intention starting a war. I'd still be no match for the military. That's a ridiculous argument in this day and age. I do not have a murderous mentality or personality. I mind my own business. I guess you haven't been on this forum long enough to get to "know" me. I'm a little 'old lady who enjoys target shooting as a hobby with my son using various guns. They're all interesting in their own way and a very good investment. We blew up a bolder and turned it into gravel. We topped some trees with it that were looking dangerous in wind storms. (We live out in the wilderness where it is perfectly legal to shoot and have a very safe place set up against a bank to shoot) Each bullet costs about $7.00, so needless to say, it is used sparingly.

I also love shooting an A-K, among other "assault" type guns. There is no recoil and you can take aim, hold it right against your cheek and not feel a thing...very accurate and light. So, to make wild assumptions as to the purpose a person has for enjoying shooting various types of guns is just flat out wrong. In fact, these guns make lousy hunting rifles as they'd really tear up an animal. Although my son and I agree with hunting (to maintain healthy populations and for the purpose of filling a freezer with meat...I'd love that part)....neither one of us has the stomach to kill anyone, animal or human. Neither one of us can bare the thought of watching a deer standing their with those big brown eyes, alive and enjoying life one minute and falling down dead the next. So, we don't hunt. It's an insult to me that you assume that I'm some maniac with a killer mentality since I am interested in assault rifles among other guns. And not only that, but it's just ignorant. I don't really need a gun for protection where I live. There is virtually no crime to speak of. I don't lock my door and I never worry about violent creeps here. It does make me feel better anyhow, just in case. But that is not the sole reason at all why I like to have guns. They all work a little differently and it's challenging to learn how to shoot various types of guns accurately and well. They're incredible "machines."

And yes, they also loved to play with them. Shooting an MP 40 is just plain cool. Same thing with a fully auto AK, and MG 42s! Oh. My. Gosh. I watched someone cut down a fairly large tree with one (it was his tree if you're wondering). Wow. And it only cost him a few hundred dollars in ammunition.

Yes it is.

Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino is opposed to the gun registry, stating in a press release:
We have an ongoing gun crisis including firearms-related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered, although we believe that more than half of them were smuggled into Canada from the United States. The firearms registry is long on philosophy and short on practical results considering the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives."

Exactly!

Originally Posted by Boxer100
I am not talking about banning now, I am talking about having 3 or 4 or 5 guns in your house? This is absolutely unnecessary even if you argue that you need a gun to protect yourself. Your argument is weak.

The argument is not weak at all. It's exactly the same thing....guns or dogs. It's no one's business how many or what type of guns someone owns anymore than it's anyone's business how many or what type of dog someone owns or how many dogs, what type of car someone owns or how many,what size house or how many houses someone owns. It is a private matter and the governement and anyone else should mind their own business and stay out of the peoples' business.

My argument is perfectly strong. My answer to why I have more than one gun is simply because I can. Why do I have a particular type of gun? Because I can.

 

[4dogs3cats]

Boxer, I for one, would feel safe if I had more then one gun in the house. What if I was downstairs and the gun was upstairs and someone broke in?

What if someone told you, you could only have ONE dog. And he happened to be upstairs when someone broke in and killed you before the dog got a chance to defend you?

 

[Dizzy]

Meh, I've said it before and I'll say it again.

I have never worried about needing a gun in the home because I live in a place where I'm pretty sure I aint gonna get shot.

Some criminals have guns. But not average joe who is out robbing, or average joe who is drunk and out for revenge, or joe bloggs who is in the midst of a psychosis.

I might get attacked, but I sure as hell won't get shot.

So why do I need a gun?

Simple. I don't.

 

[MelissaCato]

You people arn't getting it.

The 2nd isn't about duck hunting. It's about protecting our FREE states from gubberment tyranny.

What are you people gonna do ... go single file ? LMAO

Hey, how about that there Tony and the US Army car ... it's leaving pit road as we speak. YeeeeHawwwwwwwwwwwww

GO GO GO US ARMY !!!! :yikes:

 

[Buckshot]

Meh, I've said it before and I'll say it again.

I have never worried about needing a gun in the home because I live in a place where I'm pretty sure I aint gonna get shot.

Some criminals have guns. But not average joe who is out robbing, or average joe who is drunk and out for revenge, or joe bloggs who is in the midst of a psychosis.

I might get attacked, but I sure as hell won't get shot.

So why do I need a gun?

Simple. I don't.

Odds against you getting shot are very high. The odds of you being victimized by someone without a gun arent that high either, depending on where you live. You could be quite well trained to protect yourself against pretty much anything. There are a lot of victims who have decided after being victimized that they dont want it to happen again and many have chosen firearms for defense. Second Amendment sisters has a great many women in their ranks who have changed their minds after being victimized and many have joined their ranks to get better educated and skilled at a sport they love.

I certainly would not want someone to posses a firearm if they arent going to get into using it. There is nothing that will get someone hurt faster than pulling a firearm on some one and fumbling with the mechanisms due to lack of confidence and experience in its use. It certainly sounds like a firearm is not for you, but dont fall victim to the idea that bad things cant happen to you. The newspapers are full of victims who could have had a chance if they didnt think like victims. I dont carry a gun usually and honestly it isnt my first choice for a defensive weapon. I have used them several times to dispatch automobile injured wildlife. Only two times have I ever pulled a firearm on a person and I used to work in some very bad places. If I had not pulled a firearm in those two cases I would have certainly been in a fight and depending on outcome robbed. In those two situations I didnt let them escalate, I am confident that I was of the wrong skin color to those folks and I dont think handing them my wallet (in either case) would have ended the confrontation.

I have no issue with taking a life of someone who is intent on causing serious unprovoked harm on other people. I dont mind a good fair fist fight but these days it usually doesnt work like that. There are many people who would rather be raped and beaten then to take another life, but there are a great many of us who dont feel that way. It is a personal choice. I also feel a bit of civic responsibility to not allow a perpetrator to continue his practice in my community. If we dont resist it tells them they are free to do it again with no consequences.

 

[Doberluv]

MelissaCato
ĜȫƝ ₩īĿÃ

You people arn't getting it.

The 2nd isn't about duck hunting. It's about protecting our FREE states from gubberment tyranny.
What are you people gonna do ... go single file ? LMAO

I agree. That's really the bottom line. Most people who aren't getting it have already been gotten to by their government...already succumbed to the brain washing and tolerance for loss of freedom and excessive gov. regulation.

Bah-heh-heh....(need a sheep gif here.)







Buckshot
Top Dog Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,603



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dizzy
Meh, I've said it before and I'll say it again.

I have never worried about needing a gun in the home because I live in a place where I'm pretty sure I aint gonna get shot.

Some criminals have guns. But not average joe who is out robbing, or average joe who is drunk and out for revenge, or joe bloggs who is in the midst of a psychosis.

I might get attacked, but I sure as hell won't get shot.

So why do I need a gun?

Simple. I don't.

Odds against you getting shot are very high. The odds of you being victimized by someone without a gun arent that high either, depending on where you live. You could be quite well trained to protect yourself against pretty much anything. There are a lot of victims who have decided after being victimized that they dont want it to happen again and many have chosen firearms for defense. Second Amendment sisters has a great many women in their ranks who have changed their minds after being victimized and many have joined their ranks to get better educated and skilled at a sport they love.

I certainly would not want someone to posses a firearm if they arent going to get into using it. There is nothing that will get someone hurt faster than pulling a firearm on some one and fumbling with the mechanisms due to lack of confidence and experience in its use. It certainly sounds like a firearm is not for you, but dont fall victim to the idea that bad things cant happen to you. The newspapers are full of victims who could have had a chance if they didnt think like victims. I dont carry a gun usually and honestly it isnt my first choice for a defensive weapon. I have used them several times to dispatch automobile injured wildlife. Only two times have I ever pulled a firearm on a person and I used to work in some very bad places. If I had not pulled a firearm in those two cases I would have certainly been in a fight and depending on outcome robbed. In those two situations I didnt let them escalate, I am confident that I was of the wrong skin color to those folks and I dont think handing them my wallet (in either case) would have ended the confrontation.

I have no issue with taking a life of someone who is intent on causing serious unprovoked harm on other people. I dont mind a good fair fist fight but these days it usually doesnt work like that. There are many people who would rather be raped and beaten then to take another life, but there are a great many of us who dont feel that way. It is a personal choice. I also feel a bit of civic responsibility to not allow a perpetrator to continue his practice in my community. If we dont resist it tells them they are free to do it again with no consequences.

Well said Buckshot. :hail:

 

[Nechochwen]

What are you people gonna do ... go single file ? LMAO

Hey, how about that there Tony and the US Army car ... it's leaving pit road as we speak. YeeeeHawwwwwwwwwwwww

GO GO GO US ARMY !!!! :yikes: