bear repellent

[John Henry]

Peter Mackay who drafted bill c-36 is a big fan of guns, there's a picture of him wearing gun shirts , he supports uncontrolled access to guns but at the same time he wants the state to control sexual behaviour of consenting adults because for him sex is more harmful than guns.

Actually Peter Mackay didn't support uncontrolled access to guns . We still have the PAL system which means anyone and everyone has to take a gun safety course before you apply for a PAL . Then the Feds do a background check on you to see if your a good citizen . If you are then you get your PAL . That in no way is uncontrolled access to a firearm . Background checks are down by the RCMP and they are the ones that issue you your PAL . How is that uncontrolled ???

I could lend a person a shotgun or a rifle but that person must have a PAL . Not too sure about hand guns . I would never do that anyways because the few guns that I have are my babies and they don't go any where unless I go with them .

What the Conservatives did was to change the ATT system . Before you had to get a special ATT just to bring your brand new hand gun from the store to home. If you wanted to repair your hand gun and bring it to a gunsmith you again had to get a special ATT for that . Then another ATT to get that repaired gun back home . Just a bunch of useless paper work . Now if you have an ATT which your gun club applied for you then no longer need a special ATT to bring your gun home or bring it to a gun shop . If you have an existing ATT your new PAL will show that. No need to carry a bunch of paper around with you . This whole ATT special transport was a waste of time .

People who passed a certified gun safety course and have cleared background checks are not criminals . I told you that before . It's the hoods that are going to break the laws because they don't respect the laws of the land . The hoods are the problem not the law bidding citizens . I know many gun owners and not one of them are law breakers . Some of the best times that I've had were at a gun club .

Some of the stupid shit that you hear in the States is because people have not been trained properly in handling a gun or proper storage of a gun . That's the fault of the gun owner and the system . In Canada the system makes you take a gun safety course first before you can purchase a gun.

C-36 is a whole different topic .

 

[fuji]

It's funny how the same gun lobby pushed for bill c-36

No it didn't. I'm a member of both of the national gun organizations and I don't recall either of them ever making any mention of c36.

 

[fuji]

The conservatives abolished the gun registry used to track guns and their owners the same way you track a vehicle with a licence plate. So does it make any sense to have license plate to track vehicles involved in accidents but have no similar tool to track firearms which can be more dangerous than vehicles?

Yes it makes sense that a vehicle would have a visible license plate that can be seen by other drivers on the road, including the police. It's very useful.

On the other hand it makes no sense for guns. It's not like you can see the registry information for a gun from a distance, as you can with a car

So it's totally different, and whatever arguments you may want to make, the analogy to cars is a bad analogy.

 

[basketcase]

Gladiators fights included weapons ( swords) which makes it different than MMA. ...

I know you have no interest in history but gladiators were well trained to make showy yet non-lethal attacks. They were extremely valuable property so the owners were not willing to throw them away.

And there have been numerous deaths from MMA.

 

[basketcase]

As I said I don't have issue with people using guns inside the club but I have an issue with people having access to guns outside the club.

Which has exactly what to do with this thread? The laws in Canada are quite clear and IMO strike a good balance between allowing legitimate use of guns and ensuring safety.

I have no sympathy for the paranoid US gun nuts who worry that a tyrant is going to take away their guns but your comments here are just foolish.

 

[SexyFriendsTO]

The gun laws in Europe are even better and much stricter, I doubt in Europe anyone would be allowed to keep a handgun at home.In Canada we tend to copy bad laws from the US

In some European countries you are allowed to have a handgun that shoots rubber bullets. That is something North America should look into.

 

[fuji]

The gun laws in Europe are even better and much stricter, I doubt in Europe anyone would be allowed to keep a handgun at home.In Canada we tend to copy bad laws from the US

You are wrong. It is legal to have handguns in most European countries and in several you can own automatic military rifles. Like Canada and unlike the US you do have to register with the police and pass a background check.

 

[John Henry]

The gun laws in Europe are even better and much stricter, I doubt in Europe anyone would be allowed to keep a handgun at home.In Canada we tend to copy bad laws from the US

France and Belgium have very strict gun laws . Gee I wonder how well that worked out for them . Only the terrorists had guns and that's why they were able to kill so many people . If the good people of both countries had guns on their persons there is no way that the terrorists would have been able to kill so many people . You think .

Just look at the mass shootings in the US . All of them were in gun free zones . Why the fuck do you think that was the case . Because there was no one available to shoot back at the shooters . You think that terrorists are going to pick a place were people have guns on them . Daaaa Gun free zones ... might as well put up a sign and say shoot here , we will not shoot back at you . Look at Mexico , very tough gun laws . How's that working out for them ???

Just look at other counties . Many of them treat women like shit . It's OK to kill a woman who's a hooker or committed adultery . Women have to walk behind their husbands , can't drive cars , can't be out in public by themselves or have to cover their entire bodies and faces . Gee lets follow what some other countries are doing . Eh.

Some countries gas prices are a few cents a gallon . Gee why not over here . They can do it so why not us . In the States they can get a permit to carry hand guns . Why not us . Let's do what other countries are doing.

Basically saying what other countries are doing is just being stupid . We are not other countries , got it . This is Canada and we a can make up our own laws the way we see fit . If you wish to have a law like other countries have then just move over there . Then you will be a happy person.

Tired of hearing what other countries are doing . I don't give a rat's ass what other countries are doing . I don't live in other countries . I live in Canada . If you have a problem with gun owners in Canada then please go to a gun club near you and check out these bad people who have hand guns . You just might be surprised how nice these people are .

 

[basketcase]

The gun laws in Europe are even better and much stricter, I doubt in Europe anyone would be allowed to keep a handgun at home.In Canada we tend to copy bad laws from the US

In parts of Europe, not only are their handguns at home but you will find many homes with assault rifles.

 

[basketcase]

France and Belgium have very strict gun laws . Gee I wonder how well that worked out for them . Only the terrorists had guns and that's why they were able to kill so many people . If the good people of both countries had guns on their persons there is no way that the terrorists would have been able to kill so many people . You think .
....

Oh yeah, a bunch of people pulling out their guns in a dark Paris theater would have been a wonderful idea.

 

[John Henry]

Oh yeah, a bunch of people pulling out their guns in a dark Paris theater would have been a wonderful idea.

Gee I wonder how the terrorists were able to shoot anyone with it being so dark . I'd rather be hit by a bullet from someone that was trying to protect me instead of being lined up like a bunch of cattle and get executed by the terrorists . My goodness it was dark in the theater . How were the terrorists able to see ? Yet if some people had a gun they were not able to see the terrorists . I see you real thought that one out . Daaa

Don't forget or maybe you already have , not all of the shootings were in a dark theater in Europe . San Bernardino wasn't a dark theater . What's your excuse there . If you want to cower like a chicken in a hen house then so be it . Other people would rather fight and die then be executed like some animal . All they need are the tools to accomplish that .

You don't see terrorists going after places like gun clubs in Europe do you . Gee , I really wonder why ????

 

[basketcase]

Gee I wonder how the terrorists were able to shoot anyone with it being so dark ...

Sorry but I was with for for most of this thread but now you've become ridiculous.

The Paris attack could only have been stopped by well armed police checkpoints on every corner. Even if that venue had armed guards, the terrorists would simply have found a different target. The Belgium attack took place at an airport where there were armed guards. Armed civilians wouldn't have stopped either attack.

And the terrorists were able to shoot so many people because they didn't care who they hit. Even SWAT type police wouldn't have opened fire with civilians near the terrorists.

 

[fuji]

The Paris attack could only have been stopped by well armed police checkpoints on every corner.

To be fair, that's not true. There are certainly costs to having an armed population, but there are also benefits. The terrorists fired at some cafes and restaurants before going into the venue--if some of the cafes and restaurants had fired back, it might not have been the same outcome.

After the 9/11 attacks, security forces significantly hardened security around common targets like airports, government buildings, etc., so the terrorists have switched to soft targets. Hitting a soft target has little economic impact, but it still has a LOT of political impact. And the reality is, even with checkpoints on every street corner, you can't really stop attacks on soft targets. There just will never be enough security forces to do that--ever.

So you have really got two options. One is to use intelligence services to try and detect, infiltrate, and arrest terror cells before they carry out attacks. That's been fairly successful, but you can't win every single time--a certain number of terrorists will succeed in hitting soft targets. And you could just accept that, and go on with life. And that may be a valid strategy.

A second strategy is to start arming the soft targets. Maybe not every person in society, but a significant number. You can do that with a concealed carry program, or you could do it by authorizing businesses and homeowners to keep firearms for defense in their home and business.

With modern technology there are even some prudent ways to do that. Allow everyone to have a loaded assault rifle in their home or business--but wired up to an alarm. Pick it up, and the police are notified--911 is on the way. That's basically what you want anyway. You want the soft targets to be able to shoot back, but you want the armed police response to come as well. Typically the terrorists have the advantage in these situations--they've trained for it, they're organized, they've got a plan. They'll have the upper hand against civilians, even if the civilians are armed.

But armed civilians can significantly slow them down and make it a lot harder for the terrorist to operate.

If these attacks persist, it's likely worth a discussion on HOW to go about arming soft targets in a prudent way. I think there are some third alternatives to the traditional gun-control/conceal-carry viewpoints we've had to date.

 

[GPIDEAL]

What about the scenario of a woman hiking and legally carrying a bear spray in a bear country and someone trying to rape her in the woods , so she had to use the bear spray to prevent the rape, would she be prosecuted for using her bear spray against a man to stop the sexual assault ?

I'd use my dog repellent against a mugger if I was jogging in the woods, or pull a Joe Pesci on him like kicking his face if I had a chance. Point is, if your life is in danger, that would be a mitigating factor, IF you were prosecuted for using the spray against your assailant.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Gee I wonder how the terrorists were able to shoot anyone with it being so dark . I'd rather be hit by a bullet from someone that was trying to protect me instead of being lined up like a bunch of cattle and get executed by the terrorists . My goodness it was dark in the theater . How were the terrorists able to see ? Yet if some people had a gun they were not able to see the terrorists . I see you real thought that one out . Daaa

Don't forget or maybe you already have , not all of the shootings were in a dark theater in Europe . San Bernardino wasn't a dark theater . What's your excuse there . If you want to cower like a chicken in a hen house then so be it . Other people would rather fight and die then be executed like some animal . All they need are the tools to accomplish that .

You don't see terrorists going after places like gun clubs in Europe do you . Gee , I really wonder why ????

How could they miss or risk shooting themselves in a full theater, regardless of it being dark? (Don't forget light from the screen).

I hear what you're saying, but arming everyone a la Archie Bunker's solution to preventing plane hijackings isn't necessarily a safe move for society.

 

[GPIDEAL]

so why American tourists are allowed to cross canadian border with their licenced handguns? I assume that they aren't members of canadian shooting clubs ? So if canadian legislation applies to tourists, americans aren't supposed to carry their handgun in canadian territory for the purpose of self defense, so why canadian customs allow them to do so ? If Marijuana possession is legal in Washington state, it doesn't mean that residents of that state are allowed to cross canadian border with Marijuana.

I don't know about this. Perhaps someone else can chime in.

 

[destillat]

I'd use my dog repellent against a mugger if I was jogging in the woods, or pull a Joe Pesci on him like kicking his face if I had a chance. Point is, if your life is in danger, that would be a mitigating factor, IF you were prosecuted for using the spray against your assailant.

My SO runs very early in the morning on occasion. I bought her a small canister of dog repellent in case she is accosted by human or animal (we live in an area where coyotes are becoming a problem). If she needs to use it on a human, I have no reservations defending those actions... and she has no problem doing it, laws be damned.

 

[AK-47]

My SO runs very early in the morning on occasion. I bought her a small canister of dog repellent in case she is accosted by human or animal (we live in an area where coyotes are becoming a problem). If she needs to use it on a human, I have no reservations defending those actions... and she has no problem doing it, laws be damned

Exactly!

A woman ought to be able to carry spray for self-defense. No judge in his right mind is gonna lock up a woman if she uses it to protect herself

 

[fuji]

My SO runs very early in the morning on occasion. I bought her a small canister of dog repellent in case she is accosted by human or animal (we live in an area where coyotes are becoming a problem). If she needs to use it on a human, I have no reservations defending those actions... and she has no problem doing it, laws be damned.

Coyotes aren't a threat to adults.

 

[AK-47]

Coyotes aren't a threat to adults

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/nova-scotia/coyotes-kill-toronto-singer-in-cape-breton-1.779304