🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1994Nov16.040333.18533@cs.sfu.ca> jstrickl@cs.sfu.ca (James Strickland) writes:

>In article <qgiuVc3w165w@aroga.wimsey.com>,
>Jim Pook <pook@aroga.wimsey.com> wrote:
>>I think I could come up with some good rules for gun owners. For 
>>instance, I would do away with silly laws that restrict semi-automatic 
>>centerfire rifles, magazine size limits, etc.

>Why are these laws silly?  What do you use these weapons for?  What
>"right" is being infringed upon by these limits?  What about the right
>of others to safety?

Much of the silliness is due to restrictions based solely on cosmetic 
appearance as well as magazine restrictions.  What's the purpose of 
limiting magazines?  To make it easier to identify criminals?
If it can be shown that these weapons pose an unreasonable risk to public 
safety then your comments may have merit.  Stats Can does not bear out 
your concern however.  I don't feel I need to justify why I should have a 
weapon.  Can you justify why I shouldn't own firearms?  What about the 
right to own property for no reason that hithertofore hasn't done 
anything to anyone.  It's been said before; I have several firearms and 
they haven't even hurt anyone let alone kill them, are they defective?  

>>I would allow full-automatic firearms to people trained and authorised to 
>>use them. I would allow handguns to be used for hunting.

><sounding like a broken record now>
>What use do fully automatic firearms have, other than the obvious one of
>killing a lot of things in very little time?  Why are handguns useful for
>hunting?

Fully auto firearms are potentially fun.  I'd like to shoot a full auto 
to see what it's like.  Does this imply I'm a threat to society?  I 
hardly think so.  Handguns can be useful for hunting due to numerous 
factors.  One is they're more portable in heavy brush.  Secondly they're 
compact which is useful when on trips in outdoor areas (conserve space and 
weight).  Thirdly they're easy to carry on one's person at all time, also 
useful for dangerous territory.

>While we're at it, we should remove all restrictions on people owning
>explosive devices.  You don't agree?  Why not?  Please explain the
>difference to me.  Surely any law abiding citizen is entitled to own
>any number and type of explosive devices - after all, the law abiding
>citizen would never break a law, so what harm could there be in
>allowing it?

Firearms are much more robust than your average explosive.  You require a 
modest number of actions to discharge a firearm (not the least of which 
is supplying it with ammo).  Explosives generally require more care and 
handling and have the potential for more damage.

>>I would require a national training standard and licencing of people who 
>>wish to use firearms - much like a drivers licence. To be renewed every 5 
>>years.

>This sounds like a good idea, but you picked a terrible analogy for
>your argument (IMO).  Driver's licences are mostly a waste of time and
>money - they may weed out some of the people incompetent to drive cars,
>but they are also awarded to a lot of people who have poor attitudes,
>poor skills, or both.  The result is an intimidating environment for
>pedestrians, cyclists and even other motorists in some cases.

Acquiring an FAC is currently more strict however than your driver's 
licence.  Your observation on motor skills is borne out by Stats Can, 
however the situation is not transferable to firearms as you suppose.

>In other words, requiring licencing does not get rid of the "bad apples",
>and it does nothing to address the fact that there is now another easily
>lethal weapon which may be easily accessible under times of emotional duress.
>(I say "easily lethal" to differentiate guns from things such as knives,
>which may be lethal but require a little more guts to use and usually do
>not result in as quick a death.)

First off the last paragraph is misleading.  Even Chretien has admitted 
that passing laws is not going to stop people determined to break the 
law.  Licencing does permit people that want to legitimately own firearms 
prove that they're competetant enough to do so.  If someone is unstable 
enough that they're willing to injure another human without a valid 
reason I don't think having a firearm or other weapon will make much of a 
difference.  Why don't you ask the person who shot the BC doctor if 
they've completed a firearms safety course.  The point?  Your paragraph 
implies that licencing doesn't do anything but put another dangerous 
weapon on the market.  In fact this is just conjecture and not proven.  
It would appear by the _lack_ of people that did go through registration
convicted of shooting other people it is in fact false.

>>Use a gun in a crime (such as robbery, murder, assault, etc.), lose your 
>>right to own and use a firearm for minimum 5 years - max. life.

>Fine.  Is this likely to change anything?  Correct me if I'm wrong, but
>I believe the Criminal Code of Canada already specifies that life
>imprisonment is possible if a gun, *real or fake*, is used in the
>conduct of an indictable offence (this is from memory of grade 11 law,
>taken a decade ago, so I may have some details wrong).  Are people
>intent on using a gun in a crime deterred by this?

No, but that's because to my understanding it's not being strenously 
enforced but plea barginned away.  This is an implementation failure on the 
part of the legal system.

>"Oh dear, now I might be unable to legally own a gun while I'm in prison
>- I guess I won't commit the crime now." :-)

>>I would provide for national educaution of ALL people with respect to 
>>firearms.

>The fact that someone does not know the details about the construction
>and operation of guns may shock someone who is interested in guns, but
>it does not necessarily imply that the people do not have a good grasp
>of the important concepts.

You might mention that to the Ottawaian that retrieved an officer's 
pistol and promptly managed to discharge it (accidently he claimed).  We 
teach our kids about poisons, fire, cars, looking both ways before 
crossing the street; why don't we instruct them about firearm safety 
considering about 25% of Canadian households own one (whose parents 
should be doing already).

>BTW, your typo ("educaution") is an interesting one.. :-)

>>- Jim Pook - pook@aroga.wimsey.com
>>- Jim's Fishing Charters (604) 433-8817

>In an earlier posting you implied that gun control does not reduce the
>number of people killed or injured by guns per unit time.  This would
>imply that the situation in Canada would be the same without any gun
>control, and the situation in the U.S. would be the same with tighter
>gun controls.  Do you really believe this?  How do you explain the
>difference between the two countries?  Are U.S.ians just naturally
>more violent?

Fact:  Washington DC has the highest handgun homicide rate in the U.S. 
despite draconian restrictions.  Surrounding areas which are considerably 
less restrictive do not share the same problems.

Fact:  Some European nations require households to own automatic weapons (as 
part of the militia) and have a correspondingly low rate of crime.

Fact:  On a per capita rate Canada and the U.S. have the same levels of 
firearms ownership although the murder rate by firearms is considerably 
higher than in the U.S.

Conclusions?  Maybe it's not just the guns but cultural differences as 
well.  It would appear that Canadians are not as apt to shoot each other 
even though we have comparable firepower to Americans.  This may also 
imply that we don't need as many firearms restrictions as we do.

>BTW, your characterization of gun control advocates as people who would
>not be happy until all guns are removed from existence is not accurate.
>I am a gun control advocate (not an active one, but enough of one to
>respond to your post), but I recognize that there is a legitimate use
>for guns.  (e.g. protection from polar bears, peace officers protecting 
>their own lives, "sports" for those who claim shooting is a sport.)

Firearms owner's have already bent over enough that it seems the ultimate 
goal is to remove all firearms.  Who is to decide that my semi-auto 
shotgun is unsuitable for any situation?  You?  Again, why should I 
justify my firearm's ownership to anyone if they haven't harmed a soul?  
Can you tell me why I need to justify it?
-- 
"Never in the field of human | Will Christie | "He must be talking about our
 conflict has so much been   | #6382 Chinook |  liquor bills."  --Unknown
 owed by so many to so few." | 666th AW IHHD |  Canadian Spitfire pilot,
 --W. Churchill, Sept. 1940  | Ladder  Admin |  shortly thereafter