TAKE AIM AT 'TOY' GUNS (Ottawa Sun)

[chronic]

Originally Posted by kullwarrior

You're one of those liebral arent you? Licensing will lead to registeration, registeration will lead to restrictions, which will lead to prohibition. What happen to the INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY? you should just do a registery of people who can't get those stuff. And NO, DON'T EVER EVER try to take away people's freedom and rights. We don't want to start a dictatorship like Britain and Austrialia....

man I thought when I immigrated to Canada I could gain more freedom and rights...turns out the people is going down the slippery slope...Time to find another country... US? ugh hate their healthcare...Norway? They don't allow immigration...Switzerland? Ugh don't speak the 3 languages they use...Ugh man there's no where to go...good bye cruel world!
back on topic, The only reason we ASC want to push for licensing of airsoft guns is simply were in the bottom of the hole already we (Airsofters in Canada) wants to go back up the slippery slope which we slip thru from completely OK to nay in 1998

Actually no. I am not liberal. But I do believe that stupid people shouldn't vote, drink, have guns or procreate...

[Huron]

What PROS have to do is get past the whole "whether or not a gun is a weapon" argument. The answer is YES, they are weapons, but we also have the right to possess them. THAT is what should be argued for.

[Brian McIlmoyle]

Originally Posted by GabeGuitarded

What PROS have to do is get past the whole "whether or not a gun is a weapon" argument. The answer is YES, they are weapons, but we also have the right to possess them. THAT is what should be argued for.

DING!

The argument in western society is that .. seeing as we have the rule of law, and police to enforce those laws, Citizens no longer have any need for weapons. And because they are considered inherently dangerous we should be content to have them all locked away for our own good.

Which seems like a good idea on the surface, However .. in our society there are people who do not subscribe to the rule of law.. and operate outside of those rules putting everyone in danger. and they allow themselves to be armed.

The police are virtually powerless against such people. Our Government is in a state of conflict between the goal of a safe society and the protection of it's citizens.

Laws restricting ownership and carry of weapons is not anything new.. since there have been modern societies with the rule of law there have been rules about carrying weapons in public.

I'm certain I don't want to live in a society where I NEED to carry weapon just to make it home from work.

But as a law abiding citizen in a free society I think I should have the option to carry a weapon that is effective against a worst case scenario that experience and history proves is possible to occur.

Make me take courses, make me register MYSELF ( not my guns ) .. make me maintain that registration.. Give me the option.. Let me choose

[mills0]

A gun never killed anyone, it's simply a tool in a killers hand

[Deaf_shooter]

Originally Posted by Brian McIlmoyle

DING!

The argument in western society is that .. seeing as we have the rule of law, and police to enforce those laws, Citizens no longer have any need for weapons. And because they are considered inherently dangerous we should be content to have them all locked away for our own good.

Which seems like a good idea on the surface, However .. in our society there are people who do not subscribe to the rule of law.. and operate outside of those rules putting everyone in danger. and they allow themselves to be armed.

The police are virtually powerless against such people. Our Government is in a state of conflict between the goal of a safe society and the protection of it's citizens.

Laws restricting ownership and carry of weapons is not anything new.. since there have been modern societies with the rule of law there have been rules about carrying weapons in public.

I'm certain I don't want to live in a society where I NEED to carry weapon just to make it home from work.

But as a law abiding citizen in a free society I think I should have the option to carry a weapon that is effective against a worst case scenario that experience and history proves is possible to occur.

Make me take courses, make me register MYSELF ( not my guns ) .. make me maintain that registration.. Give me the option.. Let me choose

good agreement, but what about society in Canada that need weapon to hunt for foods like Inuit, and so?

[mcguyver]

Originally Posted by The Saint

I really don't understand why you're talking down to us Mcguyver, when your argument isn't how the law works. You're arguing from your own normative possession, we (Brian, Morb, myself) know where you stand but am pointing out how the law actually work.



Essentially, there are two types of weapons in the Criminal Code,
1. Designed as a weapon (guns, swords, knives, etc)
2. Used as a weapon (more about the intent of the user)
Both are equally valid weapons, but some like to argue/believe that only Number 2 should exist. Not the way the law works.

Finally, as far as the Criminal Code is concerned, using a piece of wood whittled to look like a Glock makes that piece of wood a weapon results in the same offence as using an airsoft gun. Using a pellet gun, though, is much more severe.

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 around guns, every house had them, everyone knew how they worked. It was rare to hear of anyone killed by them, accidentally or otherwise. But it was common they were used as tools, from pest control to husbandry to sustenance. Ask anyone in that environment if they consider a gun a "weapon" as you have printed out the definition. You will not get a consistant answer. Just because the law is written that way does not mean it is an iron-clad definition nor is it uniformly applied.

Is it a weapon if it is designed to kill an animal other than man? Did Cooey design their .22 for people or pests? Some guns are so large an unwieldy, it would be a trial at best to use them against a person who could move. Does that exempt them? I know of several guns that would be difficult to use on yourself, just like it would be difficult to run over yourself with a vehicle, but anything is theoretically possible. If you want to argue about a Glock 22 vs a Parker-Hale .270 as defined as a weapon, you might have a better case.

I'm not talking "down" to you Dave, but you have to realize that I've been a legal gun owner damn near as long as you've been alive, and have dealt with things over the years that contradict and transcend the textbook definiton you have laid out.

So, if I carried my electrician's slitting knife on Yonge Street with the handle sticking out of my pocket, is it a weapon? If I carried it in my tool belt with the handle exposed, is it a weapon or a tool? Same knife, razor sharp, it could sever your head in 1 swipe. It was designed to cut, that is it's sole purpose. Is it a weapon or a tool? Depends on circumstances, not the properties of the item, it is the same item after all.

Is a Glock in the pocket of a gang-banger a weapon, or a tool? Is the shotgun in the farmer's closet a weapon, or a tool? The difference, for the purpose of enforcement and to determine intent when the item is used depends on this hair-splitting. If you intend it as a weapon, it is. If you don't, it isn't. Society at large will also make this distinction to determine the utility of such an item as well. This is why there is debate still raging of C-68 after 14 years.

I didn't make this shit up, but I have to live with it.

To answer the issue of a gun as a weapon applied in reality (in Alberta at least), I'll refer you to the case of Brian Knight, the farmer who shot a thief stealing his quad last winter. His shotgun was loaded with birdshot, a non-lethal (unless you put the muzzle against your eyeball I suppose), and shot the fleeing thief twice, hitting him in the legs and ass. His charges were:

Criminal negligence causing bodily harm (because the crook was actually hit and required minor treatment), pointing a firearm (self explanatory), possession of a weapon dangerous to the public (standard fare that gets levelled even at teens with fake guns at school), discharging a firearm (proximity to a roadway), dangerous driving (he ran the guy off the road with his truck), and possession of an unregistered firearm (self-explanatory).

There was no attempted murder charge, even though a firearm is supposedly a weapon. He loaded the gun with non-lethal birdshot, so it was the intent that was the determining factor. If he had slug or buckshot in that gun, I promise it would have been attempted murder (unless he fired in the air as a warning).

What would have been the charge if he had stabbed the fellow (knives are lethal after all), or if he had clubbed the man with a hockey stick? The intent is what matters here in my opinion, not the tool used, regardless of the textbook definition.

How about the Dennis Galloway case in BC? He used a handgun in his jewellery store to shoot a robber also armed with a gun. The crook was paralyzed, and received a 4-year prison sentence. Galloway was not charged at all, even though he used a "weapon", and shots missed his target and exited his store.

How about those who own restricted firearms? Does everyone compete in target-shooting competitions? That is the only legal reason for ownership that applies to civillians? That is the letter of the law, but I'll tell you that it is not enforced that way. I have never had to submit proof of my competition scores to ensure I meet the conditions set out in law.

Originally Posted by Criminal Code of Canada
"weapon" means any thing used, designed to be used or intended for use
(a) in causing death or injury to any person, or
(b) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person
and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes a firearm;

The reason that the lower bolded portion was added was to try to establish that all firearms are weapons. However, that is not always viewed as the case. They would not have added it if it wasn't an item that could be (or should be) debated.

[The Saint]

Originally Posted by mcguyver

I notice that it seems that you need a little refresher in how folks outside urban centers think.

And I notice you seem to think that those of us near or in urban centers, especially in Ontario, seem to think along the same lines as the ANTIs.

The fact is, we have no problem seeing a tool as a weapon and a weapon as a tool, and neither does the law. Things can be designed to serve a purpose. A car is a form of transportation, even if I don't drive it. A gun can reach out and hurt someone, even if I don't shoot it. Neither of those two devices will work without my operating them, but if I operate them, they will function to allow a narrow range of tasks to be achieved.

And weapons and tools are all property. The only reason some PRO argue otherwise seems to be because they think relegating weapons back to being property will somehow protect them from gun control, though ironically sometimes these are the same that will complain about the lack of (federal) property rights in Canada.

The attempt to split hair on whether a gun is designed to hurt/kill animals versus people is not productive as far as arguing in favour of gun ownership. If it can hurt an animal, it can hurt a person. Killing is not always the measuring stick, and the fact that I can't accurately use a M2 without a tripod doesn't make it any less a firearm. In such an event, the question is not even about whether one was attempting to use a weapon (because it is a weapon) against another person, but whether the act of employing the weapon can be reasonably accomplished.

Canadian federal law says you can carry that knife with the handle sticking out, in fact, it encourages you to do so (concealing a weapon has no lawful excuse). Again, it's not an issue of whether it's a weapon or a tool (in the eyes of the law, it's both), the issue is what you intend to do with it.

Incidentally, the self defence cases you've pointed out demonstrates that, with proper legal representation, a firearm can be argued to have been wielded in a non-lethal manner.

Ultimately, if the "guns aren't weapons until used as such" position isn't gaining much traction even with many gun owners/supporters here, doesn't that make you wonder about how effective a message it'd be to the wider population? Like I said, is the point of such a message to strengthen resolve of the existing like-minded PROs, or is it actually meant to be a position that the PROs are trying to popularize? I expect it's more of the former, since there seems to be a general attitude that only gun owners will support gun owners. Because if it's the latter, what some of us are saying is that you're not going to get anywhere. And worse, if the "guns aren't weapons" position is based in any way on the surrounding of the word "weapon" to the ANTIs as a socially "evil" term, you're doing more to hurt your own cause than the ANTIs.

[nathaniel]

yes gun registry is pointless, no banning firearms will not put an end to gun crime.

the fact remains tha most guns used in crimes by criminals were smuggled into the country, right under the nose of our ever vigilant government. a ban on firearms will not stop this from happening all it will do is take something intended for the purpose of sport from a responsble person, make them a criminal. criminals will prob not see any stricter sentancing for bringing illegal weapons into the country, or using them. a registry will force quiet respectfull owners like myself to be scrutinized by law enforcement, while the criminal with a full auto is about to shoot up a mall or a highschool, with a weapon that is allready outlawed in canada, as full auto firearms should be to ANY non military yes police this is you too, you dont always practice resonsible firearms ownership. handguns were made with the intent to be concealed for the purpose of an attack that is all. totally abolishing frearms in canada is rediculous if the criminals still have them, i would expect it would not be unreasonable for the responsible, i lock my gun, keep it safe, educate those around me, and keep them safe. ignorance is the main issue here, gun control is an oxymoron in itself, firearms are allready illegal to most people, further restrictions on the people that step out into public eye and say yes i own a gun here is how and why, register me! is rediculous, that will never solve criminal activity nor would completely banning guns, poor education on the subject, or rather we should look at the individual situation and stability of those in question. perhaps some people need to ask themselves, if a criminal comes int my home threatens my family wth a gun d i not hae the ability do defend myself wth reasonable means.... well the answer in this FINE country of ours is NO you do not, and if the anti people have their way you wouldnt have so much as a pee shooter to plink targets with. the fact remains that although a gun is not a weapon untill used as such like aything thhe hot button here seems to b e a car.

in reality without education anyone that sees something fre a projectile from a tube, without proper education can see no purpoae but to use it to kill another animal human or otherwise, perhaps tha is our last primortal instict still instilled within, animals kill eachother. we are animals taking one tool will lead to the creation of a new tool, far more deaths occur because of alcahl than anything else, we dnt see a movement to abolish booze, do you really want a nation tha cant defend it self anyway, i dont.

guns dont kill just like knives dont kill, unstable people kill people. people will kill eachother, you unfortunately cant stop that.

[L473ncy]

Originally Posted by mcguyver

...just like it would be difficult to run over yourself with a vehicle...

Just to throw in some humor; I guess you've never heard of "ghost riding the whip" then. It's actually fairly easy to run yourself over if you fall...

[Brian McIlmoyle]

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.

[mcguyver]

Our current round of laws have forced the re-education of everyone in Canada, from the long-time gun owners to the gun haters. Since 1989 when the gun control debate began, we have bred a generation that has an inate fear of guns, and ignited a fear in those who would otherwise be ambivalent. This was an engineered strategy right from the get-go, it was no accident. Any reasonable person knows that simple regulation is not sufficient to alter a society, you need to sway the "hearts and minds".

This excerpt is many years old:

In most contexts, it is not possible to ban firearms except those that have little practical purpose. Regulation is a compromise approach to allow products that are inherently dangerous to be used under certain circumstances. Regulations reduce casual gun ownership by increasing the barriers to obtaining firearms.

From here:

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/.../19-1/d_e.html

This is the reason we have the strict regulation we do. It has nothing to do with guns, but everything to do with forced "re-education" of the populace to abandon a "gun culture" because it's too much hassle. Anyone who thinks the antis are fools is an idiot. They are 20 years ahead of us, and we are playing catch-up.

Now, the reason that the gun control debate still rages in this country is that the rhetoric of public safety recited for the last 20 years has proven to be wrong, costly and backwards in the progress of a free society. During that same time, we have seen gang-bangers convicted of murder get little to no jail time, and our justice system has become a revolving door system of rampant mitigation.

In this atmosphere, do we think that we are going to be allowed more gun freedom? Anyone who thinks so is dreaming. What needs to happen is a complete upheaval of our society. Bill C-391 is going to die in committee when an election is called next fall. The upcoming prorogation of Parliament is going to restart the committee clock and set it back until fall of next year before 3rd reading at the earliest. It will not even make the Senate and will die.

This means that our current laws are going to remain where they are. Is gun control going to be an election issue? You bet, but not for the pro-gun side. The anti-gun crowd is going to use it as a wedge issue to try to prevent a Conservative majority. What does this mean?

It means gun control is here to stay. We are 20 years behind the 8-ball and playing catch-up against a generation of anti-gun lies, official social engineering in the name of public safety and outright media-driven fear-mongering. To get the "silent masses" to sway to our banner is going to take more than simple facts. The Auditor General's report on the costs of the Registry were made public in 2002, and we heard a whisper of discontent. It was redelivered in 2006, and only slightly more of a whisper. Why has it gained traction now? Only because there was a slim chance of it being undone, nothing more, nothing less.

The right of property doesn't exist in Canada. We can argue freedom all we like, but when the public sees freedoms give way everyday in every area to the tune of public safety, guns are not going to get any more free to own or use in Canada, that is a promise. Society has regulated rather harmless "weapons" for decades, the truly "dangerous" ones like guns are going to get more regulated (or rather, the exceptions to illegal possession granted us as a privilege now will disappear) instead of less.

So, the argument of the right to possess weapons (guns or otherwise) is moot. It is NEVER going to happen in the conglomeration known as Canada, ever.

If anyone wants serious change in this area, the pro-gun rhetoric MUST be ramped up to make it an election issue, more important than the environment or the economy. Those items will come and go, but basic rights are an eternal issue. You think I use rhetoric, wait until the debate over C-391 resumes or we have an election call.

[Brian McIlmoyle]

Thank you and I agree..

For the most part the best gun owners can hope for is NO CHANGE.

I can't see the gun control debate trumping the economy or the environment as a wedge issue..though.

[mcguyver]

Originally Posted by Brian McIlmoyle

Thank you and I agree..

For the most part the best gun owners can hope for is NO CHANGE.

I can't see the gun control debate trumping the economy or the environment as a wedge issue..though.

Personally I hope it does, but in the backrooms, not in the media.

Conservative majority is where it's at. More of the same is counter-productive, and a Liberal government is not acceptable.