TargetTalk

Don't think it's about education. IMHO, it's about CONTROL.

Dennis (finally in Prescott)

william wrote:Two thoughts on the subject:
1. As US citizens, it's none of our business - including the NRA's.

And yet, the reverse has never stopped the Brits from commenting on American anything.

nglitz wrote:And yet, the reverse has never stopped the Brits from commenting on American anything.

On this forum, British and non-US members have generally not commented on US politics, except to politely correct misapprehensions about our laws and customs.

Or do you mean the press? It doesn't seem unreasonable for foreign media to report on the domestic politics of a Superpower.

Vote "Yes".

http://opinionzone.blog.mypalmbeachpost ... rs-office/

Look for the yellow box.

william wrote:Two thoughts on the subject:
1. As US citizens, it's none of our business - including the NRA's.
B. Canada has restricted airguns for years, and it doesn't seem to have had a profound effect.

And an afterthought:
III. Restrictive gun laws in much of the English-speaking world hasn't diminished essential liberties in any of those countries. Only Americans seem emotionally unable to accept that there is life - a good life at that - where firearms don't outnumber children better than 3 to 1.

The sentiment is strong in this country because there are still many parts throughout this country, (I would know from traveling all over it due to my military service) that are very remote. There are certain towns where there are no police. These are small towns, on major highways. And some other towns, there are very little police. What happens when there is a break in with an armed assailant? Also, many of these towns are many miles from any food source. So options include shooting your own food, growing it, a mix of both, or driving a great distance to buy it, which gets expensive.

I for one am opposed to anymore gun regulations aside from perhaps a universal background check. But here we love our ability to fight back when attacked and easily hunt our own food. =) Just a different perspective.

william wrote:Two thoughts on the subject:
1. As US citizens, it's none of our business - including the NRA's.
B. Canada has restricted airguns for years, and it doesn't seem to have had a profound effect.

And an afterthought:
III. Restrictive gun laws in much of the English-speaking world hasn't diminished essential liberties in any of those countries. Only Americans seem emotionally unable to accept that there is life - a good life at that - where firearms don't outnumber children better than 3 to 1.

A few brief words on Canada's convoluted and confusing firearms legislation. The law classifies as "firearms" those airguns having muzzle energy and/or velocity greater than the magical thresholds of 5.7 Joules and/or 152.4 metres/second (~500fps).
That means that to possess the more powerful airguns in Canada you need a firearms licence, which means that you must take a safety course and be vetted by the Mounties, who are supposed to check your suitability by calling up your neighbours, your spouse, your bitter ex-spouse, etc. etc.. In Canada, despite what you might be told, possession of firearms is prohibited. Under Canadian law, you may get a temporary (5-year) exemption from that prohibition if you can obtain a firearms licence. If and when you obtain a firearms licence there are many different regulations "controlling" what you may and may not do with your firearms. Carrying for self-defence is not generally permitted, unless you can convince the government that your life really depends on it. A geologist working in the field where bears are known to be about might have a chance of getting a permit to carry, but he couldn't carry in town.

There are a few different classes of licence, one for long guns, another for handguns and some military-style rifles, and yet others for people who are 'grandfathered' to own various types of guns that have been declared to be especially abhorrent and dangerous, such as .25-calibre pistols. If you fail to obtain or fail to renew your licence, or if you lose that licence by being particularly naughty, you instantly are faced with criminal charges for possessing a firearm, even it is your own property. In such cases, the government is not obliged to provide any compensation for confiscating your possessions, as Canada's much-vaunted constitutional rights do not include property rights.

I have never seen any of the airguns used for serious target shooting being classified as firearms in Canada, although it's possible some of the air rifles might be, if the owners didn't dial down the muzzle velocity. Fortunately airguns are not on the radar of the anti-gun activists, who have put all their focus on campaigning to re-introducing a long-gun registry, being absolutely convinced - despite massive evidence to the contrary - that this is an essential tool in fighting crime.

Such is the state of affairs in the True North Strong and "Free".

metman wrote:In Canada, despite what you might be told, possession of firearms is prohibited. Under Canadian law, you may get a temporary (5-year) exemption from that prohibition if you can obtain a firearms licence.

That is true. In quite the same sense true as it is forbidden to drive a motor vehicle on a public road.
Yes. Forbidden.
However, you can obtain an exemption from such prohibition; such an exemption is called a permit or licence. In order to require it, you must absolve mandatory schooling, pass a state approved test, and have to pay a fee. Then you are issued an official-looking card called "driver's licence".

If and when you obtain a firearms licence there are many different regulations "controlling" what you may and may not do with your firearms.

If and when you obtain a driver's licence, there many different (and frequently quirky and unreasonably appearing) regulations "controlling" what you may and may not do with your motor vehicle on a public road. I think they even limit your right to tinker away with your motor vehicle and to alter your own (!) duly-acquired and paid-for property as you see it fit.
The vigilant stooges of officialdom constantly hound the holders of such exemptions, mercilessly trying to find them at fault, and they issue sanctions at the slightest infraction.

If you fail to obtain or fail to renew your licence, or if you lose that licence by being particularly naughty, you instantly are faced with criminal charges for (...)

Wow. Even more similarity to that driver's licence. :-( This Canadian government is truly evil.
But that ably explains the contantly growing number of illegal Canadian immigrants ("dreamers") in the USofA. They only seek a better and freer life...

Alexander

Alexander wrote: Wow. Even more similarity to that driver's licence. :-( This Canadian government is truly evil.
But that ably explains the contantly growing number of illegal Canadian immigrants ("dreamers") in the USofA. They only seek a better and freer life...

Alexander

Yes there are many parallels to the drivers' licence. But most technical infractions of driving do not entail criminal charges, whereas all firearms-related infractions, including paperwork mistakes, can lead to criminal charges. It's like misdemeanor versus felony in the U.S.
The point to take away is not that Canada is necessarily oppressive, but rather that an excessively law-bound approach will not make things safer beyond a certain level that comes from the basic honesty and decency of ordinary people, and not from the threat of punishment. The Canadian laws do not prevent crazy or evil people from misusing guns. As proof one need only notice that all the Canadian mass-shooters obtained their guns legally.

metman wrote:Yes there are many parallels to the drivers' licence. But most technical infractions of driving do not entail criminal charges, whereas all firearms-related infractions, including paperwork mistakes, can lead to criminal charges.

But the point to be retained IMO is that the language that was used to disparage the controls and licencing of firearms possession result in the immediate loss of the argument because of the easily shown parallels to every other form of licencing.

If the issue is approached on both sides as one of considering appropriate licencing requirements and penalties then those seeking changes to the Firearms Act that will result in a lessening of either will stand a better chance of convincing the general public.

SlartyBartFast wrote:
But the point to be retained IMO is that the language that was used to disparage the controls and licencing of firearms possession result in the immediate loss of the argument because of the easily shown parallels to every other form of licencing.

Except for one very obvious non-parallel. Almost everyone who applies (and everyone does) gets a drivers license as a rite of passage. There's no public stigma applied and no threat of the cops breaking into your property to take the car away. Also, you may own cars on private property that are not driven on public roads and no licensing of any sort is needed. Just got out of jail and need a license, no problem.

How much more scrutiny is applied to those applying for gun permits of any type? Do all who apply get that license? Can you keep a gun inside your home with no licensing?

Significant differences.

A more pertinant argument for this forum is that increasing gun regulations have really done nothing to enhance our sport. In fact, the opposite is far more likely: at a certain point people throw up their hands and give up, sell their guns and quit. Clubs lose members and many have closed because of the increasingly strict regulations. Young people who might have the innate potential of a champion are now never given the chance to even try it out.

metman wrote:A more pertinant argument for this forum is that increasing gun regulations have really done nothing to enhance our sport. In fact, the opposite is far more likely: at a certain point people throw up their hands and give up, sell their guns and quit. Clubs lose members and many have closed because of the increasingly strict regulations. Young people who might have the innate potential of a champion are now never given the chance to even try it out.

Amen to that!!!

nglitz wrote:How much more scrutiny is applied to those applying for gun permits of any type? Do all who apply get that license? Can you keep a gun inside your home with no licensing?

Significant differences.

Everyone who takes and passes the written and practical tests gets a licence.
Getting the Canadian RPAL was no more difficult than getting a drivers licence.

The other non-parallels? Yes, firearms are different. So there are differences.

Don't bitch and moan like the post I referred to to try and make changes to how firearms are treated, licenced, or sanctioned. Present the arguments about why guns should be able to be stored without a licence, or how a collectors licence should be easier to obtain, or how sanctions should be determined.

Still might not get your way, that's how things work in a democracy, but you stand a better chance convincing people.

PatMourin wrote:

william wrote:Two thoughts on the subject:
1. As US citizens, it's none of our business - including the NRA's.
B. Canada has restricted airguns for years, and it doesn't seem to have had a profound effect.

And an afterthought:
III. Restrictive gun laws in much of the English-speaking world hasn't diminished essential liberties in any of those countries. Only Americans seem emotionally unable to accept that there is life - a good life at that - where firearms don't outnumber children better than 3 to 1.

The sentiment is strong in this country because there are still many parts throughout this country, (I would know from traveling all over it due to my military service) that are very remote. There are certain towns where there are no police. These are small towns, on major highways. And some other towns, there are very little police. What happens when there is a break in with an armed assailant? Also, many of these towns are many miles from any food source. So options include shooting your own food, growing it, a mix of both, or driving a great distance to buy it, which gets expensive.

I for one am opposed to anymore gun regulations aside from perhaps a universal background check. But here we love our ability to fight back when attacked and easily hunt our own food. =) Just a different perspective.

Just keep in mind that a “universal background check” is really a backdoor registration system. Think about it. Every FFL-involved transaction with a background check involves a Form 4473. All Form 4473s are kept by the FFL until they go out of business, and are then transferred to BATFE. If BATFE has a record of every transaction, they de facto have a database of everyone who owns a firearm.