What the hell is wrong with some you posters? Shoot Bears. Scare Bears. Wound Bears. Shoot Bears in the skull. You can stop wondering why we kill and eat you. GB
US citizen smuggled 64 handguns using NEXUS pass...
- Thread starter nottyboi
- Start date
Citing the Liberal Propaganda organs of the CBC and Toronto Star to justify why no one should have a firearm but the security details for rich & famous or your local drug dealer, WTF? The federal government doesn't keep statistics and out & out lies when it comes to trying to justify their attacks on legal gun owners. I don't have to justify to anyone what I own or why I want it. As for thugs shooting thugs, so what? The majority of guns being used in crime are coming in from the US and that's a proven fact. licensed gun owners are statistically less likely to break the law than any other segment of society including the police.
I should be able to go about with my Sig P320 with a ATC, after all the safest place to my gun to be is concealed on my person. And don't be hating Colt Canada, they make a fantastic rifle, both the MRR and SA series of semi-automatic AR15 rifles are available to the licensed public, I love mine. Easier to handle than a pistol, very accurate.
Owning a firearm is a birthright and not something we should have to beg the government for.
I should be able to go about with my Sig P320 with a ATC, after all the safest place to my gun to be is concealed on my person. And don't be hating Colt Canada, they make a fantastic rifle, both the MRR and SA series of semi-automatic AR15 rifles are available to the licensed public, I love mine. Easier to handle than a pistol, very accurate.
Owning a firearm is a birthright and not something we should have to beg the government for.
None of those things can cause serious harm to other people. Perhaps we just change the laws a bit .You can have your damn guns but if they get stolen you face FULL FINANANCIAL and Criminal LIABILITY for any harm done by them in perpetuity. You can only end your liability if you destroy the gun or sell it.There's no need to eat as much sugar, caffeine and salt that people eat. In fact, they are costing the health care system millions, if not billions.
There's no need for transportation beyond basic 4 wheels and a motor. No one needs a Mercedes with a V8 that burns more fuel than a turbo 4
There's no need for anyone to live in a 4000 square foot house. The energy to heat and cool an old home of that size is wasteful.
There's no need to watch sports and pay athletes millions or dollars when it would be heathier for you to go out and kick a ball around.
Need has nothing to do with it. It's about want, and people want to shoot pistol in Canada and abroad through lawful organizations that are internationally recognized.
Cost of participating shows that it is composed of people who have a job and can afford to shoot as a hobby. There's no drug dealers or gang bangers hanging around your local gun ranges getting ready to shoot the next stage.
In society the "WANT" for people to shoot guns is vastly exceeded by the "WANT" for people to not be shot. Thats democracy.
All those other wants that have negative consequences are much more broadly represented.
So you want me to be fully responsible for someone who breaks into my home and steals from me and later commits another crime? What about their parents who gave birth to he little SOB? The person who did he crime is fully responsible, and licensed gun owners take every precaution to keep their property safe. Mine are trigger locked, in a safe and my house is alarmed, I'm doing more than I am legally required too.None of those things can cause serious harm to other people. Perhaps we just change the laws a bit .You can have your damn guns but if they get stolen you face FULL FINANANCIAL and Criminal LIABILITY for any harm done by them in perpetuity. You can only end your liability if you destroy the gun or sell it.
In society the "WANT" for people to shoot guns is vastly exceeded by the "WANT" for people to not be shot. Thats democracy.
All those other wants that have negative consequences are much more broadly represented.
Did you know that in 2018 the Department of National Defence reported that they lost 559 weapons, while reporting an additional 14 just plain stolen. And we're not even going to start with the number of rifles, shotguns and pistols that have been lost or stolen out of police cruisers, Calgary and RCMP come to mind.
The police don't have to follow the same rules I do, nor as well versed in the laws as I have to be.
Won't happen.None of those things can cause serious harm to other people. Perhaps we just change the laws a bit .You can have your damn guns but if they get stolen you face FULL FINANANCIAL and Criminal LIABILITY for any harm done by them in perpetuity. You can only end your liability if you destroy the gun or sell it.
In society the "WANT" for people to shoot guns is vastly exceeded by the "WANT" for people to not be shot. Thats democracy.
All those other wants that have negative consequences are much more broadly represented.
You ever look up how many vehicles are stolen out of driveways WITH KEYS every single day? Same with vehicles stolen as a result of a break and enter. No criminal or financial liability against those owners if the vehicle kills someone. As a matter of fact, insurance companies still accept the claim and pay out for the stolen vehicle if damaged or not found. Civil issue if victim wants to go after the registered owner, but it won't go anywhere if the keys were taken from inside the house.
Want another example? If an employee is injured or killed at work, there is no criminal or financial liability against the company if they followed all the requirements set out by the government for safety. Look up the number of construction workers injured or killed every year vs. number of fines and charges against the companies.
So keep dreaming.
https://nfa.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/RCMP-ATI-Firearms-Stolen-from-Police2.pdf
I don't disagree with your second and third statements and for the most part the first (as it applies to Canada). That said, your line of argument is flawed and that deserves to be pointed out.There are enough laws in place. Go look in the Criminal Code with is available on line for free.
Problem is the laws and acts are not sentenced properly.
Judges hand out the lenient sentences, not the lawmakers or enforcers.
Says a guy coming to a Canadian board for the opportunity to get laid?It would end up just keeping Canadians from fleeing the lack of opportunity in Canada...
Of course there is utility but it's worth accepting that in Canada we see it as a hobby rather than a necessity (other than security fields). A rifle can be a necessity but for most people, I see a handgun as no different than a PS4....
There is plenty of utility in Canada for handguns in private hands, and hiking in bear country isn't one of them. You are better off with a rifle....
And I have no problem with shooting as a hobby as long as we accept there will be restrictions on the guns.
There's already plenty of restrictions on handguns, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say.Of course there is utility but it's worth accepting that in Canada we see it as a hobby rather than a necessity (other than security fields). A rifle can be a necessity but for most people, I see a handgun as no different than a PS4.
And I have no problem with shooting as a hobby as long as we accept there will be restrictions on the guns.
When was the last time you saw someone with a handgun walking around on the street, or any other firearm for that matter who wasn't authorized to carry it?
In Canada you can not hike with a pistol (unless you have some kind of carry permit and even then I doubt it's allowed in parks).... Also yes a rifle is better al killing bears, i get that, but a rifle is heavy and awkward if you are hiking and while a pistol does....
It also depends on what type of bear. Black bears typically only attack when surprised by a person close by or you're messing with their kids and even then will run away after the initial threat is gone. Grizzlies aren't really a huge issue with attacks and bear spray or noise-makers are the standard (both are pretty light). The only bear a gun is standard defence against is Polar Bears and many regions require a rifle (not a hand gun) when out in their territory.
As long as you are following the laws about storage then no. If it can be shown that you r non-compliance facilitated the crime then I could see a civil judge assigning some liability.So you want me to be fully responsible for someone who breaks into my home and steals from me and later commits another crime?...
I wonder how many "stolen" guns are really just sold illegally and then reported as stolen.
The government doesn't keep those stats because it would disprove their case. But from press reports, I know of 3 cases of gunowners selling guns to gangs, 1 was a gang member who went through all the steps to get a licence to obtain multiple guns, another was paying off debts to a gang by selling them guns. in cases were guns were "sold", the CFO's failed to follow up on people who were buying lots of guns for no apparent reason. The CFO has the right to demand an inspection to see if you have those guns, and in each case they should have.As long as you are following the laws about storage then no. If it can be shown that you r non-compliance facilitated the crime then I could see a civil judge assigning some liability.
I wonder how many "stolen" guns are really just sold illegally and then reported as stolen.
You can't get it into your head that it's not licenced people who shoot handguns at other people, it's gangbangers and gangsters who do not have a license and do not get a background check every single day of the year at the Canadian Police Information Centre.None of those things can cause serious harm to other people. Perhaps we just change the laws a bit .You can have your damn guns but if they get stolen you face FULL FINANANCIAL and Criminal LIABILITY for any harm done by them in perpetuity. You can only end your liability if you destroy the gun or sell it.
In society the "WANT" for people to shoot guns is vastly exceeded by the "WANT" for people to not be shot. Thats democracy.
All those other wants that have negative consequences are much more broadly represented.
And you're totally out of your mind if you think that an automobile cannot cause serious harm to other people. It happens all the time: 160,000 accidents killing 2900 people a year. And don't tell me that automobiles have a purpose and handguns don't; Owning a car in the city is not a necessity, as the government provides more than enough public transit. How about that they may still allow you to rent a car for short periods, but it will have to be kept at the rental agency overnight, since leaving it at your place could get it stolen and imagine how many pedestrians could get run over and killed as a result?
Banning guns for emotional reasons will lead to other things being banned, because governments in Canada deems everybody essentially irresponsible, regardless of background and qualifications.
I keep repeating over and over than the term 'guns', meaning handguns and long-guns, gets conflated into handguns only.I wonder how many "stolen" guns are really just sold illegally and then reported as stolen.
If a person is intent on making a living on selling/trafficking handguns, how is he going to continue doing that if the Chief Firearms Officer denies transfers because he continuously claims that he gets his guns stolen? How about when the guns are recovered at a crime scene, and an investigation shows that both seller and buyer knew each other? Nowadays, guns can be traced forensically even if serial numbers are ground off.
Those 64 guns were not handguns. They were long-guns. You can buy a long-gun over the counter if you have a firearms license. You can't do that if you want to buy a handgun because every purchase/transfer is subject to approval by the Ontario Provincial Police, and it takes at least 2 weeks.The thing is the money is so good in the illegal gun market. This guy made $100,000 net easily on 64 guns.
He's likely less than the 1% of gun smugglers that have actually been caught.
Guns smugglers get their guns from the US. So what does that have to do with licensed Canadian gun owners, who's handguns John Tory wants to ban in order to solve the handgun problem in gang infested areas of Toronto?
You know they already tried that horseshit before:None of those things can cause serious harm to other people. Perhaps we just change the laws a bit .You can have your damn guns but if they get stolen you face FULL FINANANCIAL and Criminal LIABILITY for any harm done by them in perpetuity. You can only end your liability if you destroy the gun or sell it.
In society the "WANT" for people to shoot guns is vastly exceeded by the "WANT" for people to not be shot. Thats democracy.
All those other wants that have negative consequences are much more broadly represented.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/lo...-the-safe-storage-of-firearms-need-clarifying
...Over the Christmas holidays in 2003, while Mr. Hargreaves was visiting his son in Florida, thieves worked to open the 770 kilogram concrete and steel safe he had had installed in his north Toronto apartment. For nearly two days, burglars used sledgehammers and blowtorches to open the vault, before they could make off with 35 high-powered handguns and rifles worth more than $40,000.
Still, police decided the precautions Mr. Hargreaves had taken to protect his collection were inadequate. They obtained a warrant for his arrest on unsafe storage charges, which forced him to remain in Florida to avoid prosecution.
The irony of this post on an escort board....Of course there is utility but it's worth accepting that in Canada we see it as a hobby rather than a necessity (other than security fields). A rifle can be a necessity but for most people, I see a handgun as no different than a PS4.
And I have no problem with shooting as a hobby as long as we accept there will be restrictions on the guns.
To add to this for those who won't do the research, charges were dropped against Hargreaves.You know they already tried that horseshit before:
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/lo...-the-safe-storage-of-firearms-need-clarifying
Crown after 11 years has finally decided not to pursue the unsafe storage charges against Mike Hargreaves, who had the charges levied against him after thieves spent two days cracking his safe while the formerly-Toronto-based firearms instructor was on vacation in Florida. Thieves used blowtorches and sledgehammers to break into a 770 kilo concrete and steel safe over Christmas in 2003 before making off with $40,000 of Hargreaves' gun collection. Investigating officers subsequently obtained a warrant to charge Hargreaves for unsafe storage. With a warrant out for his arrest, Hargreaves stayed in Florida and chose to contest the charges through his lawyer (it is not a extraditable offense). After 11 years he is free to come and go but in the thread states he spent $14,000 in fees.
You know they already tried that horseshit before:
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/lo...-the-safe-storage-of-firearms-need-clarifying
Well the storage was not safe if people were able too break into it. The house has no alarm and was left unoccupied for a long time. That is not safe storage. If people were held fully accountable for the liablity of gun ownership including collateral effects maybe they would reconsider.
