Originally Posted by mcguyver
So, which guns are intended for use againts persons? All of them? Some of them?
I notice that it seems that you need a little refresher in how folks outside urban centers think.
I grew up on a farm .. I know killing..
Whether something is a weapon or not is a matter of perception.
When I shoot the groundhog.. am I using a tool? or a weapon.. I expect if someone asked the groundhog he'd know.
The tool VS weapon argument is moot... every reasonable person perceives firearms as weapons regardless of their intended use.
ask someone not involved in the debate what a picture of a gun is .. they will say gun.. ask them what a gun is they will say weapon.
you can say " no it's not it's only a tool until intent is manifest" yeah whatever.... NO one is listening to that debate.
It's not a "right to Property" issue .. that has been tried.
The issue is not tool Vs gun.. the issue is Legal possession of weapons.
Do citizens of a free and democratic society founded on the basis of individual freedoms and human rights have an inherent right to be armed?
They do in the USA according to their constitution.
In Canada we are allowed to own guns and shoot them where it's legal.. so it could be argued that we have that same right in Canada.
For most people they could care less about guns.. they have no interest in them except they don't want them in the hands of criminals. Which everyone agrees is a pretty good idea.
The issue is the wrong end approach of government to so tightly restrict gun ownership in the general populace that the "trickle down" effect is there is less access to guns for criminals. ( which really does not work because of our proximity to a state where gun ownership is preserved by their constitution .. and so there is an excess of guns on one side of a permeable border.. guns leak over.. due to the actions of people who disregard possession laws here)
Unless the USA disarms it's populace ( not likely) the issue of illegal guns in Canada will not be relieved. Our gun laws will continue to only serve to apply onerous and ill conceived laws onto law abiding citizens. Leaving a unarmed citizenry to fend for themselves against a armed Thuggery.
The principle issue from my perception with respect to firearm laws in canada is the arbitrary distinction between classes of firearms.
After all it's the Bullet that does the killing.. the shape of the delivery system is not the issue.
Restrictions of classes of weapons does nothing to reduce risk.
A review of the firearms laws in Canada to eliminate the useless elements would result in a body of law that is effective.
We should not be debating is people should be allowed to posses firearms.. our laws permit it. we should be debating under what rational framework should that possession exist.
The people that need to be engaged in the debate are not the PRO or the ANTI people.. the people that need to be engaged are the ones who don't care.