The Great Gun Control Debate

[Fishbone Jones]

That makes sense but also might lead to a false sense of security should an officer to go a house with no registered firearms.  The household could have a lot of guns that aren't known.
It didn't bug me too much either; but considering the state of the registry and all of the mistakes, messed up information and corruption that was reported in it, the registry's security is probably quite weak and would provide a one stop shopping list for hackers to learn how many non-restricted and restricted firearms you have in your house, address conveniently provided.

It's been noted that the RCMP have admitted to the registry being hacked on numerous occasions.

One Stop Shopping indeed.

http://www.lufa.ca/news/news_item.asp?NewsID=5849

 

[Halifax Tar]

That makes sense but also might lead to a false sense of security should an officer to go a house with no registered firearms.  The household could have a lot of guns that aren't known.

You are correct.  Any residence should be treated as armed I suppose.

It didn't bug me too much either; but considering the state of the registry and all of the mistakes, messed up information and corruption that was reported in it, the registry's security is probably quite weak and would provide a one stop shopping list for hackers to learn how many non-restricted and restricted firearms you have in your house, address conveniently provided.

No kidding.  The boondoggle with the cost over runs and messed up info, crazy!  But the premise behind it I think held merit.

 

[ballz]

I dunno my uncle is an OPP officer.  He liked knowing when eh when to call if there were possibly firearms in the house. 

I also found the registry, while a hassle, didn't impede me from getting my PAL and taking legal ownership of my rifles.  Other than the cost over run I don't see what all the hub-ub was about.  Please enlighten me.

Way to completely switch the topic, again.

Oh frig, I remember already "enlightening" you about this pages and pages ago, and you tried to say I was BSing. I couldn't even take my $1700 rifle home because I had "declare my purpose" for owning it, and then I had to register myself as target shooter, and then I had to buy an expensive range membership to "prove" I was a target shooter, but that wasn't good enough because for the first 3 months you aren't a "full member" of the range, just a "probationary member." So then I had to get a letter from the CF to the range, telling them I am RSO qualified, so that the range would let me skip the probationary period. And now I have to renew that costly membership every year or they will come to take my privately owned property and probably charge me.

And then when I moved to Gagetown, I needed an ATT to bring it up here to my new address... except I wasn't a member of a range up here yet (because I didn't live here yet), and my range membership in NL was "too far away," so then I had to buy one up here (despite not even being up here), and then I had TWO expensive range memberships.

And I've only owned it for 3 years now and this has all already happened, is this enough ******* "hassle" or "expense" yet, to demonstrate to you that there are people being ****ed around over and over again? :

I don't give a damn what your uncle thinks or likes. The fact that seeing someone legally owns a firearm, and actually went through the BS of registering it and following the law, would raise a red flag for him proves he's just as irrational as you are. Did he also leave his pistol in his car when no firearms were registered to the drug dealer he was about to go talk to? It cost over 2 billion dollars and didn't do a ******* thing to prevent crime, and you'd be happy to just bend over and take it all again.

I'd have better luck enlightening a ******* rock. Mods, I'll happily take that warning.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Legal firearms owners are some of the safest, law abiding people in the country.

No one is checked up on or has as many clearances done on them to the extent that we do.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Way to completely switch the topic, again.

How was my reply off topic ?  Feel free to ignore my posts if they ignite you this much my friend.

 

[Jed]

Relax would you ?  I haven't herd any rumblings in this country of further gun control measures.  The gestapo wont be at your door anytime soon for your guns, no matter what my "attitude" is.

I was holding out some false hope that I may show you the other side of this argument. I can see you got your mind made up. Sorry for wasting your time and my time hammering on this point. I will picket and bypass for the next verbal encounter.

 

[ballz]

How was my reply off topic ?

First you assert that "there are no rumblings of more gun control" and then when shown otherwise, you simply ignore it and try to move on to pitter patter about something else instead.

Feel free to ignore my posts if they ignite you this much my friend.

Just because your freedom of speech is annoying as hell, doesn't mean I would choose to take it away on a whim, just because I feel like it, without any evidence that you might harm someone with it.

I'm going to do what wiser folks such as Jed have opted to do. Ciao.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Can we agree that gun control in Canada is aimed (heh) more towards appeasing voters and grieving persons than it is reducing the opportunity to commit violence or the level of destruction firearms cause? 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Relax would you ?  I haven't herd any rumblings in this country of further gun control measures.  The gestapo wont be at your door anytime soon for your guns, no matter what my "attitude" is.

Actually, you're wrong again. The RCMP, after classifying the Armi Jager AP80 .22-calibre rifle as non restricted. After a couple of years and hundreds of purchases, they decided it was scary looking and changed it to prohibited on a whim. No Order in Council, no government law, consultation or amendment. Just a whim on the part of the RCMP. They then sent out letters telling all the owners to legally destroy them or turn them in, without compensation. Failure to do so would result in a visit, confiscation and criminal charges.

That's just one case if you actually cared enough to do some research for a change. I doubt it will change your attitude though, but at least you'll be somewhat more informed than you are now.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Actually, you're wrong again. The RCMP, after classifying the Armi Jager AP80 .22-calibre rifle as non restricted. After a couple of years and hundreds of purchases, they decided it was scary looking and changed it to prohibited on a whim. No Order in Council, no government law, consultation or amendment. Just a whim on the part of the RCMP. They then sent out letters telling all the owners to legally destroy them or turn them in, without compensation. Failure to do so would result in a visit, confiscation and criminal charges.

That's just one case if you actually cared enough to do some research for a change. I doubt it will change your attitude though, but at least you'll be somewhat more informed than you are now.

Other than the condescending undertones you have have informed me in this instance.  And thank you that is educational.  What caused this whim ?

 

[OldSolduer]

Can we agree that gun control in Canada is aimed (heh) more towards appeasing voters and grieving persons than it is reducing the opportunity to commit violence or the level of destruction firearms cause?

That is the ONLY reason we have these ridiculous laws.

Criminals WILL obtain firearms no matter what the laws say.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I was holding out some false hope that I may show you the other side of this argument. I can see you got your mind made up. Sorry for wasting your time and my time hammering on this point. I will picket and bypass for the next verbal encounter.

Its ok to disagree my friend its the corner stone of democracy.

First you assert that "there are no rumblings of more gun control" and then when shown otherwise, you simply ignore it and try to move on to pitter patter about something else instead.

Just because your freedom of speech is annoying as hell, doesn't mean I would choose to take it away on a whim, just because I feel like it, without any evidence that you might harm someone with it.

I'm going to do what wiser folks such as Jed have opted to do. Ciao.

Ballz the LGR is/was not gun control its a registry.  When it was abolished all that was lost was a database of who owned what at least for us honest folk.

Now I register my kid, car, dog, laptop, gps. Why wouldn't I register something I have that can kill other humans with.  It's a sound idea but the gov't messed it up.

 

[my72jeep]

Other than the condescending undertones you have have informed me in this instance.  And thank you that is educational.  What caused this whim ?

they decided it was scary looking and changed it to prohibited

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Other than the condescending undertones you have have informed me in this instance.  And thank you that is educational.  What caused this whim ?

Sorry you feel that way. Not much different than the way you've been acting yourself.

Anyway, they thought it LOOKED somewhat like an AK 47. It didn't operate like one, It didn't shoot like one, It didn't use the same ammo.

It just kinda looked like an AK47, but for them, that was enough. Scary gun.

It was a .22 long rifle squirrel gun.

 

[cupper]

I was going to post this in one of the Dumbest Things threads, but after going through the last few pages, I thought that we could all use a little levity to lighten things up a bit, and it is applicable.

Seems that someone needs to remind the educators that the is a second amendment right to bear Pop Tarts.

Anne Arundel second-grader suspended for chewing his pastry into the shape of a gun

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/anne-arundel-second-grader-suspended-for-chewing-his-pastry-into-the-shape-of-a-gun/2013/03/04/44c4bbcc-84c4-11e2-98a3-b3db6b9ac586_story.html

A 7-year-old Anne Arundel County boy was suspended for two days for chewing a breakfast pastry into the shape of a gun and saying, “Bang, bang”— an offense the school described as a threat to other students, according to his family.

The pastry “gun” was a rectangular strawberry-filled bar, akin to a Pop-Tart, that the second-grader had tried to nibble into the shape of a mountain Friday morning, but then found it looked more like a gun, said his father, William “B.J.” Welch.

Welch said an assistant principal at Park Elementary School told him that his son pointed the pastry at a classmate — though the child maintains he pointed it at the ceiling.

“In my eyes, it’s irrelevant; I don’t care who he pointed it at,” Welch said. “It was harmless. It was a danish.”

The boy’s suspension comes amid heightened sensitivity about security and guns— even pretend guns — since the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., that left 20 children and six staff members dead.

In the 11 weeks since the massacre, at least two young children in the Washington region have been suspended for pointing their fingers like guns, and a 10-year-old in Alexandria was arrested by police for showing a toy gun to others on his school bus. In Pennsylvania, a 5-year-old was suspended for talking to classmates about shooting her “Hello Kitty” gun — which blows bubbles.

Anne Arundel officials could not comment on the pastry incident because of confidentiality laws, schools spokesman Bob Mosier said. He did say, however, that a letter was sent home to families Friday and is posted on the school’s Web site.

In the letter, Myrna Phillips, assistant principal at the school, informed parents that a student “used food to make inappropriate gestures that disrupted the class” but said no “physical threats” were made and no one was harmed.

If children are troubled by the incident, Phillips wrote, parents should “help them share their feelings.” In addition, a counselor will be available to students, the letter said. “In general, please remind them of the importance of making good choices,” she wrote.

For the Welch family, the episode in Brooklyn Park started Friday morning, when the 7-year-old was given the pastry as part of a schoolwide breakfast program. By about 9:20 a.m., the boy was being suspended and his father was called in.

Welch said he asked the assistant principal if anyone had been scared by the pastry. Someone could have been, he said he was told.

The father said he had high regard for the school. He found the episode puzzling.

“I feel this is just a direct result of society feeling that guns are evil and guns are bad . . . and if you make your pastry into a gun, you’re going to be the next Columbine shooter,” Welch said.

Welch has followed news accounts of other suspensions in recent weeks. He contends educators are going overboard, which he said led him to go public.

“Kids are losing time in school for nothing more than playing,” he said.

He believes there is a danger of long-term effects when gun-related incidents are written into students’ permanent records.

He wondered: What if his son gets turned down for a security clearance when he’s in his 20s because of a pretend-gun offense at age 7? “That may sound far-fetched, but, you know what, in today’s world, it’s possible,” he said.

Welch said the boy has three brothers, and all are “typical” boys. The children have Nerf guns at home, and their grandfather is an avid hunter. Welch is a strong supporter of gun rights.

Welch asked the school principal Monday to strike references to guns from his son’s records. The principal looked into the idea but said it could not be done, he said.

Welch said school leaders also told him Monday — as the case made national news — that the suspension was related to ongoing behavior, not guns, an idea he said is at odds with what he was told Friday and the letter sent to school families.

“Honestly, I think he was just kind of doing what kids do,” Welch said of his son. “To him, it was just a game, and to the school it was more than that.”

A law to protect Pop-Tart guns

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/rosenwald-md/post/a-law-to-protect-pop-tart-guns/2013/03/11/507fd96c-8a5d-11e2-8d72-dc76641cb8d4_blog.html

Earlier this month, a 7-year-old boy’s nibbling got him into hot water at Park Elementary School in Anne Arundel County.

The boy nibbled a “rectangular strawberry-filled bar” — let us refer to it as a Pop-Tart — into a gun.

“Bang, bang,” he allegedly said.

“Suspended,” was the response from the principal’s office.

The case attracted attention from around the country. George Will referred to the boy, in jest, as “The Pop-Tart Terrorist.”

The boy’s father, William “B.J.” Welch, was miffed.

“It was harmless,” he said. “It was a danish.”

State Sen. J. B. Jennings (R-Baltimore, Hartford counties) apparently agrees. Late last week, he introduced legislation titled “The Reasonable School Discipline Act of 2013.”

The measure would prevent principals from suspending or expelling students who make “a hand shape or gesture resembling a gun” or bring to school “any other object that resembles a gun but serves another purpose.”

The proposed law allows suspensions or expulsions only in cases where the student uses such instruments in “a direct act of violence against another student.” Otherwise, less draconian measures — parent conferences, appropriate counseling — are called for.

(You can read the legislation here. http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2013RS/bills/sb/sb1058F.pdf )

“We really need to reevaluate how kids are punished,” Jennings told the Star Democrat, adding, “These kids can’t comprehend what they are doing or the ramifications of their actions.”

 

[glock17]

Its ok to disagree my friend its the corner stone of democracy.

Ballz the LGR is/was not gun control its a registry.  When it was abolished all that was lost was a database of who owned what at least for us honest folk.

Now I register my kid, car, dog, laptop, gps. Why wouldn't I register something I have that can kill other humans with.  It's a sound idea but the gov't messed it up.

People who object to weapons aren’t abolishing violence, they’re begging for rule by brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically ‘right.’ Guns ended that, and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work. — L. Neil Smith

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Its ok to disagree my friend its the corner stone of democracy.

Ballz the LGR is/was not gun control its a registry.  When it was abolished all that was lost was a database of who owned what at least for us honest folk.

Now I register my kid, car, dog, laptop, gps. Why wouldn't I register something I have that can kill other humans with.  It's a sound idea but the gov't messed it up.

Since when is it a crimmanl code offense to register a car, laptop or gps? Also you can't register anything that does not have an FRT # and those can disappear with a push of a button and have done so. So if the firearm is a class that require registration and you can't register it because there is no FRT #, you must surrender it or face charges. Every confiscation event requires knowledge of where the firearm is, without that knowledge authorities cannot easily confiscate. All the guns you own can be taken from you by a vote of Parliament and there are many politicians out there who will gladly seize your property so they may be re-elected.

 

[J.J]

Since when is it a crimmanl code offense to register a car, laptop or gps? Also you can't register anything that does not have an FRT # and those can disappear with a push of a button and have done so. So if the firearm is a class that require registration and you can't register it because there is no FRT #, you must surrender it or face charges. Every confiscation event requires knowledge of where the firearm is, without that knowledge authorities cannot easily confiscate. All the guns you own can be taken from you by a vote of Parliament and there are many politicians out there who will gladly seize your property so they may be re-elected.

To create a new FRT # takes minimal effort, all that is involved is some pictures, measurements and some of the tombstone data of the firearm. New FRT' #'s are created regularally.

ps
You have to register a car, it is an offence not to.

 

[Jimmy_D]

To create a new FRT # takes minimal effort, all that is involved is some pictures, measurements and some of the tombstone data of the firearm. New FRT' #'s are created regularally.

ps
You have to register a car, it is an offence not to.

Actually, as long as you do not operate that vehicle on public roads it does not have to be registered.

 

[J.J]

Actually, as long as you do not operate that vehicle on public roads it does not have to be registered.

Splitting hairs and not part of the discussion