Sad part is you refuse to accept that you were dead wrong about the illegal gun.
and no there is no NRA parroting going on I think you believe the NRA is in Canada which is wrong.
Last edited:
Birmingham UK shootout
- Thread starter hamermill
- Start date
and no there is no NRA parroting going on I think you believe the NRA is in Canada which is wrong.
Easier to run from a knife than a gun.
Canadian laws strike a pretty good level IMO. Hunters can hunt, framers can protect their livestock. We even provide people with the opportunity to shoot just because they enjoy it. I wouldn't mind handguns being even more heavily regulated and I could envision having to own insurance like we do for cars but it isn't
It was illegal for him to carry in Wisconsin. Either that or Wisconsin's Legislature doesn't know their own laws.
948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(2)
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
948.60(2)(d)(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
(3)
(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
History: 1987 a. 332; 1991 a. 18, 139; 1993 a. 98; 1995 a. 27, 77; 1997 a. 248; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 163; 2011 a. 35.
Sub. (2) (b) does not set a standard for civil liability, and a violation of sub. (2) (b) does not constitute negligence per se. Logarto v. Gustafson, 998 F. Supp. 998 (1998).
None of the exceptions apply in this case.
dead is dead, hard to run in your home where most domestic violence happens.
insurance, people who shoot handguns have insurance at any club I have ever been too. Its cheap a few bucks a year for $5 million in coverage, Insurance measures risk and the risk is so low the cost is low. legally owned handguns are not the problem nor a risk to Canadians.
except the court rules otherwise and dismissed the charges so it was not illegal for him to have the gun full stop!
what your opinion is does not matter the judge dismissed the charges.
Still looks to be on the books, even if the DA chose not to include a misdemeanour in that one specific homicide trial.
And it's a lot easier to not get dead running from a knife than running from a gun. And yes, there is insurance on gun clubs and perhaps people who use them, not for owning (at least last time I went to the range).
Sorry, other than target shooting and the very few people with carry permits, handguns have no legal function in Canada so unless there are zero deaths from legally owned handguns ...
By definition, if something is deemed a crime, that means that it's been banned. You are not allowed to do it.
As such, your statement means nothing.
The theory with banning guns is that it makes it harder for people to perpetrate certain other banned activities. Like killing.
you obliviously did not follow the trial
the charge was there it was dismissed for the reasons i stated before
except we have an endless supply next door and where there is a demand there will be a supply even if all guns were banned in Canada it would not make a dent.
Other than target shooting and the rare cases where carry permits are issued, what are those "several reasons" that justify civilian ownership of hand guns?
Because a misdemeanour charge is silly at a homicide trial. Again, the law says that an 18 year old can not carry except as part of supervised training.
Not a major crime but it does clearly refute claims that he was legally carrying 9along with the fact that he wasn't even legally allowed to be on the street).
Sure seems to be in the states. Odds that this shooting used a gun from his parents?
3 dead, 8 injured in shooting at Michigan high school, undersheriff says
Three people were killed and eight were injured in a shooting Tuesday at Oxford High School in Oxford, Michigan, authorities said.
www.cnn.com
Other than target shooting and the rare cases where carry permits are issued, what are those "several reasons" that justify civilian ownership of hand guns?
Because a misdemeanour charge is silly at a homicide trial. Again, the law says that an 18 year old can not carry except as part of supervised training.
Not a major crime but it does clearly refute claims that he was legally carrying 9along with the fact that he wasn't even legally allowed to be on the street).
Sure seems to be in the states. Odds that this shooting used a gun from his parents?
3 dead, 8 injured in shooting at Michigan high school, undersheriff says
Three people were killed and eight were injured in a shooting Tuesday at Oxford High School in Oxford, Michigan, authorities said.
charge was dismissed as the judge ruled it did not apply to rifles over 16' barrels last time i point that out to you it was legal for him to have the rifle. every single person out that night was in violation of curfew.
guy wounded was 100% illegally carrying a concealed pistol as his permit was expired
US example does not apply in Canada
Last edited:
Canada and the UK are both WAY safer than the USA and there are far less shootings in Canada/the UK than in America -- per capita or otherwise.
There is no getting around that, no matter how much you twist things around.
Yes they are.
I wake up this morning and the first thing I read is about another massacre in a Michigan school. I really don’t see how anyone can defend US gun laws.
It’s so sad and can be preventable.
No need to twist anything around . You are punishing legal gun owners . For the deeds of criminals . A gangbanger shoots another gangbanger . JT says better background checks on legal gun owners . That is not he way to solve the gun problem .
The Michigan school shooting was gangbangers?..... Hmm. Didn't know that. Thanks for telling me.
Exactly. What I find irritating is that this has become practically a weekly occurrence in the USA -- it happens once in every 10th blue moon in the UK or Canada, and when it does the apologists for America's lax gun laws say, "See? Gun control doesn't work in the UK or Canada."
That is what the government is telling you with this hobby . That is why they pass prostitution laws .
