Hey, Gerard, you'll love this!
Moderators: pilkguns, m1963, David Levene, Spencer, Richard H
Re: Hey, Gerard, you'll love this!
I keep telling people that this is what the anti's want to happen eventually. They want to be able to take all guns away from everyone for any reason. We can not allow this to happen. That is why I am keeping my M-1 and a can of ammo for the revolution when or if it comes. I am glad that the reporter in Canada has the guts to publicize this issue. We must not relax. Don in Oregon
Re: Hey, Gerard, you'll love this!
Also, several years ago, England said that pistols under a certain length were not legal anymore. Guess what, people just welded ears with screw holes to allow them to screw long rods into the holes to make the gun long enough to pass. Also, every country and island around advertised that they could come over and store their pistols and use them all they wanted. No problem. Very smart. Don again.
Re: Hey, Gerard, you'll love this!
I only check in here every couple of weeks these days... not doing a lot of air pistol shooting as my life is too busy and my shoulder strength just isn't good enough yet to avoid injury. But thanks for letting me know you're thinking of me Rover, now that I have checked the forum.
Now this Sun 'News' video... First of all, Sun News isn't a news source any intelligent person takes at all seriously. A bunch of idiotic pseudo-journalists working for an employer with a radical agenda, resulting in the Canadian equivalent of Fox News. Utter nonsense 90% of the time, annoying the other 10%.
On the subject of the particular story covered in the opening remarks, yes, that was an example of just how silly our laws on gun control have become. That was a well documented case where an ongoing dispute with a psychotic neighbour resulted firstly in the gun owner (a certified firearms safety instructor who had taught police and military personnel for years) buying thousands of dollars worth of video security equipment to record activity around his home, then in the confrontation during which one of his dogs was set on fire (though not seriously hurt) and a wall of his home was set on fire (he put it out). He demanded that the masked men throwing the Molotov cocktails at his home leave the property, then fired a couple of rounds in a safe direction; towards an unpopulated area, some forest. This caused them to leave, at which time he alerted the police... who took something like an hour to get there as it's not very close to a station. Everything about this situation stinks. Of course we should be able to use reasonable force to defend our safety and our property. I would draw the line at murdering someone because they wanted my stuff, as none of my stuff is anywhere near worth a human life, so perhaps we'd disagree there? But if someone threatens me or my family with physical harm and I truly believe there is an imminent threat, I will do whatever is necessary to put an end to that violence. Going no further than is necessary, of course. The victim in that case was able to have most of his legal costs covered by donations from sport shooters and their organizations, which costs were considerable as it stretched on for years in our over-burdened court system. He was eventually exonerated.
As for the long gun registry... that was kiboshed by the previous federal government, as it was understood by almost everyone as having been poorly implemented and grossly inefficient, costing billions while providing nothing but headaches. The province of Quebec is now maintaining their own long gun registry, though that is before the courts and my guess is that they will be overruled in time.
Police want to be the only guys with guns. I get that. If I were a cop I'd want to know that no one around me had guns except other officers. Feels safer that way. So police agencies usually push legislators and politicians towards more and more restrictive gun controls. It's an effort towards self-preservation. I get it, emotionally. But logically it makes no sense as obviously bad guys have all the guns they want regardless of ease of legal access, just the same as outlawing murder does nothing to prevent murder. Banning all higher powered pistols in the UK (they can still shoot weak air pistols) did nothing to change violent crime rates, only the tools used. Hot deep fry fat is among the more popular late night spousal assault weapons these days, as practically everyone has a chip frying device at home. Perfect for an after-pub snack and a bit of wife burning. Kitchen knives continue to be a popular choice of course, in spite of efforts to make anti-stabbing knives a popular thing. (Look it up. That's some crazy stuff.) And of course criminal gangs in the UK have all the firearms and ammunition they can handle as it's an island and smuggling across the Channel is an age-old profession. Similarly, estimates of illegally obtained 'assault weapon' numbers in France go to more than double the number of legally owned weapons of similar types, in spite of complex and at times draconian laws and procedures involved in getting legal access. Nice people aren't buying all those AK and other weapons of war, so gosh, it must be criminals, ignoring the law yet again!
Look, we need certain sensible rules around access to these point-and-click devices of potentially fatal harm. It's just too easy to pull a trigger and kill someone, whether on purpose or by 'accident.' So basic sanity screening of some sort needs to be implemented. As that bunch of idiots in Oregon recently demonstrated, crazy people with a violent political agenda (going up against the FBI? REALLY?) shouldn't have access to weapons more dangerous than kitchen utensils and woodworking tools. At least then they're less likely to develop inflated senses of their own capabilities and start wars they can't finish. But those types are the ones shouting the loudest about their god-given 'right' to have such weapons. Go figure. Insecurity I guess, similar to believing in a god or whatever other superstitious nonsense they buy into, a warm fuzzy feeling coming from knowing the 'big guy' is on your side and he likes you to have lots of bullets. Normal-ish people on the other hand should be able to get access to handguns and rifles of most types for sporting use, as hey, they're just devices, and in sensible hands they're a lot less likely to result in deaths. Make it mandatory to take a month-long safety and practices course at night school or whatever prior to licensing. Get serious about training as an integral element in firearms policy. Use the training sessions to weed out and formally document those with obvious tendencies towards violence. I'm all for regulation, but make it sensible, such that reasonable people can put in a modest effort then get what they want. We insist that people learn to drive a car before letting them get licensed. Is that wrong? A violation of some sacred right? Balderdash, and same for firearms use.
Now this Sun 'News' video... First of all, Sun News isn't a news source any intelligent person takes at all seriously. A bunch of idiotic pseudo-journalists working for an employer with a radical agenda, resulting in the Canadian equivalent of Fox News. Utter nonsense 90% of the time, annoying the other 10%.
On the subject of the particular story covered in the opening remarks, yes, that was an example of just how silly our laws on gun control have become. That was a well documented case where an ongoing dispute with a psychotic neighbour resulted firstly in the gun owner (a certified firearms safety instructor who had taught police and military personnel for years) buying thousands of dollars worth of video security equipment to record activity around his home, then in the confrontation during which one of his dogs was set on fire (though not seriously hurt) and a wall of his home was set on fire (he put it out). He demanded that the masked men throwing the Molotov cocktails at his home leave the property, then fired a couple of rounds in a safe direction; towards an unpopulated area, some forest. This caused them to leave, at which time he alerted the police... who took something like an hour to get there as it's not very close to a station. Everything about this situation stinks. Of course we should be able to use reasonable force to defend our safety and our property. I would draw the line at murdering someone because they wanted my stuff, as none of my stuff is anywhere near worth a human life, so perhaps we'd disagree there? But if someone threatens me or my family with physical harm and I truly believe there is an imminent threat, I will do whatever is necessary to put an end to that violence. Going no further than is necessary, of course. The victim in that case was able to have most of his legal costs covered by donations from sport shooters and their organizations, which costs were considerable as it stretched on for years in our over-burdened court system. He was eventually exonerated.
As for the long gun registry... that was kiboshed by the previous federal government, as it was understood by almost everyone as having been poorly implemented and grossly inefficient, costing billions while providing nothing but headaches. The province of Quebec is now maintaining their own long gun registry, though that is before the courts and my guess is that they will be overruled in time.
Police want to be the only guys with guns. I get that. If I were a cop I'd want to know that no one around me had guns except other officers. Feels safer that way. So police agencies usually push legislators and politicians towards more and more restrictive gun controls. It's an effort towards self-preservation. I get it, emotionally. But logically it makes no sense as obviously bad guys have all the guns they want regardless of ease of legal access, just the same as outlawing murder does nothing to prevent murder. Banning all higher powered pistols in the UK (they can still shoot weak air pistols) did nothing to change violent crime rates, only the tools used. Hot deep fry fat is among the more popular late night spousal assault weapons these days, as practically everyone has a chip frying device at home. Perfect for an after-pub snack and a bit of wife burning. Kitchen knives continue to be a popular choice of course, in spite of efforts to make anti-stabbing knives a popular thing. (Look it up. That's some crazy stuff.) And of course criminal gangs in the UK have all the firearms and ammunition they can handle as it's an island and smuggling across the Channel is an age-old profession. Similarly, estimates of illegally obtained 'assault weapon' numbers in France go to more than double the number of legally owned weapons of similar types, in spite of complex and at times draconian laws and procedures involved in getting legal access. Nice people aren't buying all those AK and other weapons of war, so gosh, it must be criminals, ignoring the law yet again!
Look, we need certain sensible rules around access to these point-and-click devices of potentially fatal harm. It's just too easy to pull a trigger and kill someone, whether on purpose or by 'accident.' So basic sanity screening of some sort needs to be implemented. As that bunch of idiots in Oregon recently demonstrated, crazy people with a violent political agenda (going up against the FBI? REALLY?) shouldn't have access to weapons more dangerous than kitchen utensils and woodworking tools. At least then they're less likely to develop inflated senses of their own capabilities and start wars they can't finish. But those types are the ones shouting the loudest about their god-given 'right' to have such weapons. Go figure. Insecurity I guess, similar to believing in a god or whatever other superstitious nonsense they buy into, a warm fuzzy feeling coming from knowing the 'big guy' is on your side and he likes you to have lots of bullets. Normal-ish people on the other hand should be able to get access to handguns and rifles of most types for sporting use, as hey, they're just devices, and in sensible hands they're a lot less likely to result in deaths. Make it mandatory to take a month-long safety and practices course at night school or whatever prior to licensing. Get serious about training as an integral element in firearms policy. Use the training sessions to weed out and formally document those with obvious tendencies towards violence. I'm all for regulation, but make it sensible, such that reasonable people can put in a modest effort then get what they want. We insist that people learn to drive a car before letting them get licensed. Is that wrong? A violation of some sacred right? Balderdash, and same for firearms use.
Re: Hey, Gerard, you'll love this!
Oh, Gerard, now you've done it. You know Rover has no room in his busy schedule for anything that isn't 100% simplistic and at least 95% in agreement with his nostrums.
Re: Hey, Gerard, you'll love this!
I firmly believe in K.I.S.S.