Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You must be American if you don't know that the Conservatives would never open up the Pandora's Box of constitutional negociations. That, or you're just a Canadian who is somehow unaware of the period of Canadian history between 1979 and 1995.
I personally feel uncomfortable with the changes and only really see hunters and farmers as having a legitimate need for firearms. Handguns and automatic rifles, which are for killing people, belong in the hands of the military and law enforcement, we have no business letting our fear spread these killing machines all over the country as a criminal with a gun will almost always catch his victim off guard or without a weapon with them anyways. Having guns all over the place around will kill more people than it will save.
No offense intended, but that's a pretty terrible series of arguments - on both a statistical and ideological level.
I agree that to open the constitution, especially for something like firearms ownership is a really, really bad idea. On the other hand, prior to 1995, possession of a firearm was not a criminal issue - even during the old Firearms Acquisition Certificate days simple possession was not illegal. It would be quite possible for a government to scrap or rewrite that entire act without resorting to any constitutional wrangling.
On an ideological level, I hate to see the words "having a legitimate need" used in any argument. In a free society the onus has to be on those who would prohibit an item rather than on the owner to justify a need. Taking this argument out of a firearms context, for example - how many horsepower does the average citizen's car need? An extremely powerful car is only designed for unsafe driving, after all. What I'm trying to say is that the "legitimate need" argument can apply to almost anything that people have and it's generally a safer way to condemn a possession or activity that a person dislikes - and dislike is not grounds for outlawing.
As for the argument that handguns are strictly for killing people, Linda Thom among others, would certainly disagree. She makes a rather nice segway into a rebuttal of your "hunters and farmers" argument, too. Funny that an Olympic gold medal winner wasn't doing something "legitimate".
Protection, too, is a legitimate reason for firearm possession. At least the government of B.C. thinks so. Anyone working in the bush in Northern B.C. is required to carry a firearm for bear protection. I know several people who preferred a handgun for that, by the way, as they found long guns to be cumbersome during work. This is, of course, why police officers carry handguns, as well.
On to statistics...
Your assertion that more having guns all over the place will result in more deaths is statistically wrong. Were you correct, we should observe a rise in homicides in the USA as states' began implementing concealed carry laws. However, the overall number of homicides slowly declined during that implementation (likely due to factors unrelated to firearms), despite the warnings of "blood in the streets" that came from opponents.
On an international level, this chart provides a nice look at the correlation (or lack thereof) between gun ownership and homicide.
It should be fairly clear that the number of guns present has little, if anything, to do with homicide numbers.
No offense intended, but that's a pretty terrible series of arguments - on both a statistical and ideological level.
I agree that to open the constitution, especially for something like firearms ownership is a really, really bad idea. On the other hand, prior to 1995, possession of a firearm was not a criminal issue - even during the old Firearms Acquisition Certificate days simple possession was not illegal. It would be quite possible for a government to scrap or rewrite that entire act without resorting to any constitutional wrangling.
On an ideological level, I hate to see the words "having a legitimate need" used in any argument. In a free society the onus has to be on those who would prohibit an item rather than on the owner to justify a need. Taking this argument out of a firearms context, for example - how many horsepower does the average citizen's car need? An extremely powerful car is only designed for unsafe driving, after all. What I'm trying to say is that the "legitimate need" argument can apply to almost anything that people have and it's generally a safer way to condemn a possession or activity that a person dislikes - and dislike is not grounds for outlawing.
As for the argument that handguns are strictly for killing people, Linda Thom among others, would certainly disagree. She makes a rather nice segway into a rebuttal of your "hunters and farmers" argument, too. Funny that an Olympic gold medal winner wasn't doing something "legitimate".
Protection, too, is a legitimate reason for firearm possession. At least the government of B.C. thinks so. Anyone working in the bush in Northern B.C. is required to carry a firearm for bear protection. I know several people who preferred a handgun for that, by the way, as they found long guns to be cumbersome during work. This is, of course, why police officers carry handguns, as well.
On to statistics...
Your assertion that more having guns all over the place will result in more deaths is statistically wrong. Were you correct, we should observe a rise in homicides in the USA as states' began implementing concealed carry laws. However, the overall number of homicides slowly declined during that implementation (likely due to factors unrelated to firearms), despite the warnings of "blood in the streets" that came from opponents.
On an international level, this chart provides a nice look at the correlation (or lack thereof) between gun ownership and homicide.
It should be fairly clear that the number of guns present has little, if anything, to do with homicide numbers.
Well from the way it's looking, making the Right to bear Arms(Which is looking like what the party is saying, They want to make a Right plain and simple and an abolition of any restrictions on any firearm) pretty much requires a constitutional rewrite. Unless somehow they want to make it it's own bill. Because it looks like they are trying to scrap the whole Firearms Act, Which I agree is a HUGE mess atm. Things like ATTs, Mag Caps, RCMP firearm control(Across the whole nation mind You), Defiantly need to go. And I'm glad they are going that way.
In regards to what You replied to BIMBAM with, I can give one example of how He's incorrect on a further note.
Take Switzerland, It requires every citizen to own a Full Auto Rifle by Law. They have nearly a 100% Gun ownership rate, And yet they have one of the lowest crime rates in the world.
We have another example from the UK...the Handgun/Pistol Ban. That was supposed to hamper the criminals down, correct?
Crime soared nearly 33% during the 90s. I think it was after that bill passed and everyone had their guns confiscated. Granted the Crime has come down a lot since the 90s when it sky rockted.
I'm not against getting rid of the Prohibited Class. It's very easy to make a Automatic Rifle these days. It takes criminals 40 minutes to get their hands on one. My friend knew someone who made MAC 10s in 5 minutes on the street.
The fact is there are millions of law abiding Gun owners who love their community. And the fact that some jerk is using that certain tool for a crime is obscene.
Criminals can kill people with Cars, Knifes, Lamps, Baseball bats and the list goes on. Some of those are more painful then a Firearm too. Should We put restrictions and Bans on those as well?
Why would You need to own a Sports car? When on Earth is a Ferrari going to NOT be breaking the speed limit? It's sole purpose is to go fast.
Also I would like to point out that even our current Criminal Code Recognizes the right to self defence with a firearm when in danger(Though it's usually always only available when You're on Your own property).
Take Switzerland, It requires every citizen to own a Full Auto Rifle by Law. They have nearly a 100% Gun ownership rate, And yet they have one of the lowest crime rates in the world.
I could be terribly wrong here, but I thought the Swiss had no standing army, requiring every male over the age of 18 to be obligated to defend the country. That's why they have so many weapons.
I could be terribly wrong here, but I thought the Swiss had no standing army, requiring every male over the age of 18 to be obligated to defend the country. That's why they have so many weapons.
No, You are correct. The Swiss have Mandatory Conscription. But it's mostly due to the fact they are a smaller Country. Even Females or Males at home are given Firearms to keep for Privacy or other personal uses.
But yes currently they have nearly 150k males serving. So they do have an active Military.
But Private Firearm Ownership and Conscription for Military service are two different things :P
I personally feel uncomfortable with the changes and only really see hunters and farmers as having a legitimate need for firearms. Handguns and automatic rifles, which are for killing people, belong in the hands of the military and law enforcement, we have no business letting our fear spread these killing machines all over the country as a criminal with a gun will almost always catch his victim off guard or without a weapon with them anyways. Having guns all over the place around will kill more people than it will save.
This is a fallacy that the anti-gun lobby uses to feed the fires of further restrictions. Switzerland is a prime example where every household is required by law to keep military-grade firearms in good, working condition, yet they have next to no gun violence as a result.
As we have seen with illicit drugs, outright prohibition has little to no effect on overall supply. I fail to see why a firearm ban would be any more effective at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals than drug legislation has been at keeping cocaine and heroin off the streets. You may put an end to legitimate hunting, but it will do absolutely nothing to stop armed robberies or murders by those who have chosen to ignore the law in the first place.
Personally, I'd like to see the Firearms Act scrapped in favour of legislation along the lines of Florida's 10-20-LIFE. Once enacted, it resulted in a 30% drop in gun crimes across the state. Unlike the Firearms Act, it doesn't make criminals out of hunters and sport shooters, but instead puts real, violent criminals behind bars for long periods of time.
This is a fallacy that the anti-gun lobby uses to feed the fires of further restrictions. Switzerland is a prime example where every household is required by law to keep military-grade firearms in good, working condition, yet they have next to no gun violence as a result.
As we have seen with illicit drugs, outright prohibition has little to no effect on overall supply. I fail to see why a firearm ban would be any more effective at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals than drug legislation has been at keeping cocaine and heroin off the streets. You may put an end to legitimate hunting, but it will do absolutely nothing to stop armed robberies or murders by those who have chosen to ignore the law in the first place.
Personally, I'd like to see the Firearms Act scrapped in favour of legislation along the lines of Florida's 10-20-LIFE. Once enacted, it resulted in a 30% drop in gun crimes across the state. Unlike the Firearms Act, it doesn't make criminals out of hunters and sport shooters, but instead puts real, violent criminals behind bars for long periods of time.
Pretty much looks like You only will lose Your Firearms Rights if You're a Felon from what the Conservatives are saying. On an Individual Basis is pretty much that.
This was obviously bound to happen. A bunch of people who knew nothing about firearms made all these laws in 95 and for the past few years people have been griping since.
Those Grandfathered Firearms are gonna have to get the dust cleaned off them after sitting in the closet for the past 18 years. xD
Well from the way it's looking, making the Right to bear Arms(Which is looking like what the party is saying, They want to make a Right plain and simple and an abolition of any restrictions on any firearm) pretty much requires a constitutional rewrite. Unless somehow they want to make it it's own bill. Because it looks like they are trying to scrap the whole Firearms Act, Which I agree is a HUGE mess atm. Things like ATTs, Mag Caps, RCMP firearm control(Across the whole nation mind You), Defiantly need to go. And I'm glad they are going that way.
Scrapping the Firearms Act and making a constitutional amendment to include a right to bear arms aren't the same thing. The Firearms Act is a piece of the criminal code, which can be (and routinely is) amended by parliament. While scrapping the Act would not enshrine a right to bear arms, it would mean that firearms would be treated as regular private property and not subject to special restrictions (except the occasional overlap with acts dealing with explosives).
While there are certainly members who would like to see the entire act scrapped, I don't see the CPC running with that idea. I think it's more likely that they'll try to feel the most popular one or two ideas (elimination of ATT's, for example) and push them, much like they did with the long gun registry.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
