Miller Out To Lunch....TO Banning Gun Ranges & Warehouses

[huntervasili]

The only ones who will really put up a stink, are those who spent a good chunk o' change on handguns and associated memberships.

They will be put out somewhat from their hobby.

The other one's who will be upset are those who feel they need a gun to protect themselves from the gun toting villains. And finally, the illegal gun owners, will put up the greatest fuss.

 

The thing is..where do illegal handguns come from? I understand a significant number of them are stolen from law abiding permit holding citizens. Take away that source, and what is left?

 

Smuggling across from the states accounts for the majority of illegal firearms in Canada.

Ohh and the RCMP contributes to stolen firearms as does our DND

http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/Article330.htm

http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/Article165.htm

 

Both acquired through access to information act from the Justice Dpt. and RCMP

[huntervasili]

ENFORCE strict penalties for those who use them in crime, and then maybe, and only maybe, gun related crimes will drop.

 

Sinker

 

Exactly, untill you punish the snot out of the REAL criminals the crimes will not decrease. If a gun is used in a crime that should be at least one life sentence. Mandatory Minimum sentencing that hurts may help the problem

Edited May 28, 2008 by Bill Parker

[danbo]

Here's a pic of "Bubba", the cell mate from hell! Lol!!

 

[Big Cliff]

Well, lets see, it is against the law to:

 

Have an un regestered hand gun

Transport a restricted weapon without a special permit

Carry a concelied weapon without a special permit

Use a gun in the comission of a crime

There are many, many more..... Unsafe storage, size restrictions, unsafe handling.

 

To legally own a hand gun in Canada you must:

Take the Canadian Firearms Safety Course

Pass the the CGSC test

Apply for a posession permit where you have to provide references.

And again, the list is long.

 

The people using guns to commit crimes are already in violation of so many laws that they don't care if you make more laws or not. If you don't enforce the laws we already have what makes you think more laws are going to work. Do you really think that banning hand guns is going to stop the criminals from carrying hand guns? If you do.... well never mind, I don't want to insult anyone!

 

Time after time, after time, we see people getting out on bail and commiting more crimes, some of these people have been charged 10-20-or more times for crimes but they still get out on bail.

 

Our laws are good, the enforcement of our laws are a joke. The idea of banning hand guns is a farce!

[Chris]

Yeah what Big Cliff just said.....and Sinker too.

 

Once again, the typical knee-jerk reaction is to ban, ban, ban.

 

To Clamp-it:

I twisted my ankle coming down our stairs. Let's ban stairways.

My daughter fell from her bike and despite wearing a helmet, scraped her knee. Let's ban bicycles and that nasty pavement stuff.

A fisherman put a hook thru his eye while casting. Let's ban hooks and casting.

There was a kid who was badly injured after falling and being run over by a riding lawn mower. Let's ban riding lawn mowers.

Two people drowned after their canoe capsized. Let's ban boats and canoes.

I once knew someone who was killed in car wreck. Let's ban cars or let's ban roadways that have trees along side of them.

 

I could go on and on and on Clamp-it, but I want to ask you how you feel about the above statements. If you feel they sound a bit ridiculous, well then......

 

You can ban everything in the world, but if there is no enforcement then it achieves nothing.....Oh, except for the small issue of the ongoing and ever-increasing erosion of the rights and freedoms enjoyed by law-abiding citizens.

 

We need to stop thinking in terms of banning and start thinking in terms of enforcement.

[scuro]

Esentially canada has a de facto national ban on handguns and has since the 1930's... the registration/licensing process and de facto ban have caused a decrease in firearm suicides but have increased overall as more people have used other methods ie. Hanging, poisoning, etc.

 

I have a bunch of info and counter arguements to all of you're other misleading citations but am in the middle of an essay and so don't at the time being have time to respond to them all..

 

I can wait until your schooling is done. Then you can trounce all of my blindingly misleading citations.

 

Put simply guns are the most efficient way to kill people. The more accessible a gun is, the greater likelihood there is it will kill someone. I haven't checked the statistics but I would hazard to guess that the US teen suicide rate is significantly higher then the Canadian suicide rate. I think the same would hold true to the death rate in domestic violence. Sure you can kill someone with a knife or hang yourself with a rope but the odds are that victims of such crimes have a much better chance of living if they were not shot. Same goes for attempted hangings.

 

Everyone has focused on the criminal point of the argument and enforcement but have failed to tackle the heart of the issue. Do guns kill more people unnecessarily in society? If so we need less of them. For any of you who have unnecessarily lost a love one, one such extra death is too many.

[Guest lundboy]

Ok I tried to be subtle in my last post in this thread but I guess it went over the heads of most.

 

This move to ban guns is world wide (It's a UN directive actually). It's not just Canada, the US, Britain, Australia etc. The US Constitution has the 2nd amendment for a very good reason...

 

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18629

 

"The Second Amendment was not put into the Constitution by the Founders merely to allow us to intimidate burglars, or hunt rabbits to our hearts' content. This is not to say that hunting game for the family dinner, or defending against personal dangers, were not anticipated uses for firearms, particularly on the frontier. But these things are not the real purpose of the Amendment. The Founders added the 2nd Amendment so that when, after a long train of abuses, a government evinces a methodical design upon our natural rights, we will have the means to protect and recover our rights. That is why the right to keep and bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights"

 

Simply put, an unarmed population is easier to control... MUCH EASIER! It's been proven time and time again. There is no bleeding heart argument about it. Once the population at large understands this, the sooner everyone can take back their streets, and their liberty. The removal of one's right to arm and protect themselves is called tyranny and is a huge step towards greater infringements of personal freedoms.

Edited May 28, 2008 by lundboy

[Fisherman]

Scuro: Do guns kill more people unnecessarily in society? If so we need less of them. For any of you who have unnecessarily lost a love one, one such extra death is too many.

Do cars kill people unnesesarily? Well they sure do, I guess we need less of them too, how about knives, sure, and whatever else is out there that can be used as a weapon. maybe I can beat some sense into you with a Shimano Bullwhip fishing rod, oh my I guess we should bann them too. Nutbar.

[Headhunter]

I would hazard a guess that vehicles kill and injure more people in the GTA than guns do, by far! The carnage on the roads is quite scary! Well, that idiot Miller would like us all to park our cars anyway.

The carnage that takes place every weekend in the entertainment district is mainly knife based, very little guns by comparison... I guess if Miller had his way, I'd be cutting my steak with chop sticks! (sorry, meat is bad, I meant tofu!)

This entire topic is simply yet another way for these left wing morons to take more control away from us, making us the sheep they want us to be!

To bad we can't ban morons!

HH

[Billy Bob]

WOW, hot topic, almost as hot a topic as it would be here in the US.

 

BOTTOM LINE and I know you all have heard this before but it's the naked truth. Guns don't kill, PEOPLE kill. Like I said before on page one, "Don't outlaw guns, outlaw the people who are the real problem.

 

Think about this for a moment. Here in the US in large cities where guns are VERY restricted in the sale or possession we have the largest crime. However, in our western states where all you have to do is walk into a store to purchase any kind of gun the streets are safe, crime is almost non existence, people feel safe in there homes and no one is afraid of gun ownership. In matter of fact when I was out west two years ago there were the HUGE billboards with local politicians advertising they back your rights to own a firearm. Don't see that in eastern states or anywhere I have been in Ontario.

 

You have a problem in Toronto with some of the low lifes that are allowed to prowl among the law abiding citizens and no one wants to address that as the real problem. Until then, the senseless violence will continue in Toronto and here in the US.

[JohnF]

Seems to me that this is about responsible gun owners paying the price for others less responsible, in fact criminal. Canadian lawmakers have enacted reasonably (some would say extremely) stringent steps to keep firearm ownership relatively safe for the general public. Ironically it's kneejerk reactions like this latest suggestion and the poorly conceived gun registration of a few years ago that are only meant to appease the bleeding heart types who never really made an effort to understand the true nature of the problem before pushing for the solution. And I don't buy the excuse that guns cause suicides. In the absence of a gun there's other ways available. They can't all be confiscated.

 

Lawmakers might be better to start immediately after their election, ignoring the bleeding hearts, and proactively formulate an enforcement system of the existing body of law that will actually bring the desired results, and then hopefully they'd have even more support from both constituencies after the job's done and election time is near.

 

A few obvious suggestions:

1. Really stiff punishments for illegal possession.

2. Huge punishments for crimes involving weapons, not just guns.

3. Regular renewals of all gun registrations with consideration given to the applicant's character in re responsible behaviour or demonstrated propensity to violence or irrational behaviour. That one will frighten some gun owners, for obvious reasons. Tough. Think about it before you give in to road rage.

4. Support from the responsible progun sector in Canada with the enforcement process.

5. Stiff penalties for gun owners whose registered weapons are stolen because they were improperly secured.

6. Resist CCP enabling laws. They're just a huge red flag to antigun elements.

 

The gun owning sector should be making proactive recommendations for the controls, regulations and penalties to be imposed on all gun owners. Illegal gun users might be a bit put out by the suggestions but they're welcome to have input as a group as well. It puts more pressure on them and hopefully improves the lot (and image) of guns and those who have and use their guns legally. Let the serious impositions be against those who abuse guns, not those who are responsible.

 

Every time a responsible gun owner hears an irrational solution like this latest from Miller, instead of crying "Unfair", he should counter with a suggestion of a positive nature, one that comes out of an informed process instead of kneejerk. Lead the way to a reasonable accommodation instead of kicking and screaming your way to a serious erosion of your rights. I know that giving up anything is against our nature, but sometimes a little give is needed.

 

Canada doesn't have the huge schism between progun and antigun folk that they have in the States, yet. So far there's only an uninformed kneejerk reaction from some appalled by the news of gang shootings and the occasional psychopath running amok. Unfortunately most of the influence is due to access to American and Toronto news. They don't understand that circumstances are different here. The fact is that most of us nongun types are essentially indifferent to guns for now. If the progun folks in Canada are smart they can nip this in the bud now before it blossoms into an all or nothing fight like it appears to be in the States. One can't ignore that guns were invented as killing machines. I'm sure that there was no thought of starter pistols in the early days. That puts guns in a unique class, and makes them very susceptible to the fears, rational and irrational, of the general public. Accordingly the whole situation has to be handled with diplomacy, not obdurate reliance on historical precedent on the part of those who wish to defend their right to use a gun. Be part of the solution to your problem, not just one more nail in the coffin of responsible gun ownership.

 

I know this will fall on some deaf ears. I've said it all before to some American friends who are extremely, rabidly progun, pro Second, and they vehemently resist any concessions. I contend that their attitude is hurting them, not helping. They disagree.

 

I'd hate to see Canadians lose any more rights to have access to guns for the many things that guns can be responsibly used for.

 

Respectfully

JF

[JohnAB]

So Miller is going to go and confiscate handguns from people who have legally bought them, registered them and stored them safely for years. That should cause a few concerns. Confiscation of legally possessed property by the government. Who is going to reimburse all these law abiding people?

 

Substantially more people in Canada die from alcohol related deaths than gun related deaths each and every year. That is a fact. To me, seems Miller should put all his efforts into reinstating prohibition. More bang for the buck so to speak.

 

And they wonder why Alberta and the rest of western Canada do not like the Liberals and their misguided philosophy's.

[Billy Bob]

I know this will fall on some deaf ears. I've said it all before to some American friends who are extremely, rabidly progun, pro Second, and they vehemently resist any concessions. I contend that their attitude is hurting them, not helping. They disagree.

 

Respectfully

JF

 

I can't see where this could be true. We have MUCH more gun rights in the US than you do in Ontario. It's fighting off the liberal tree huggers with vehemently resistance that has kept our gun rights. I believe it will not be long that you gun rights will be restricted more than you ever imagined with a passive approach. I hope not and good luck keeping your rights and not bowing to low life's that seem to get away with WAY too much.

 

Bob

[Cory]

Pure posturing

 

Take a look at his track record of getting things done.

 

He can’t even get the street meat thing done, you think he is going to be able to get this one to pass

 

Surprised he can tie his own shoes, or maybe he has Velcro laces…

[scuro]

Scuro: Do guns kill more people unnecessarily in society? If so we need less of them. For any of you who have unnecessarily lost a love one, one such extra death is too many.

Do cars kill people unnesesarily? Well they sure do, I guess we need less of them too, how about knives, sure, and whatever else is out there that can be used as a weapon. maybe I can beat some sense into you with a Shimano Bullwhip fishing rod, oh my I guess we should bann them too. Nutbar.

 

Cars are highly regulated. Many things are regulated that are dangerous. Are you arguing that there shouldn't be a total ban, the regulations need improvement, or that guns don't kill people unnecessarily? Really, it's hard to tell, and the need to make personal references really does nothing for the case you are attempting to present.

Edited May 28, 2008 by scuro

[Guest lundboy]

Cars are highly regulated. Many things are regulated that are dangerous. Are you arguing that there shouldn't be a total ban, the regulations need improvement, or that guns don't kill people unnecessarily? Really, it's hard to tell, and the need to make personal references really does nothing for the case you are attempting to present.

 

I'm all for a total ban... Sure why not? That leaves the militarized police (standing armies) and the psychopaths in control of them (and criminals) holding all the guns. Yep , makes sense to me.

 

By the way, cars aren't highly regulated, someone this very minute could steal your car and run down a parade of school children anytime of the day. (unless of course you put a wheel lock on your wheels, lock it in a 20'x10' cast iron safe which is bolted to your floor that has been inspected and approved by the militarized police, and you keep your gas separated from your vehicle.)

Edited May 28, 2008 by lundboy

[Headhunter]

Lundboy... I don't think Miller or any of his croney's are anywhere near smart enough to be doing that on purpose... however I will no argue that they may well be being manipulated by higher forces.... the dude's just not smart enough to come up with that! LOL

HH

[huntervasili]

I can wait until your schooling is done. Then you can trounce all of my blindingly misleading citations.

 

Put simply guns are the most efficient way to kill people. The more accessible a gun is, the greater likelihood there is it will kill someone. I haven't checked the statistics but I would hazard to guess that the US teen suicide rate is significantly higher then the Canadian suicide rate. I think the same would hold true to the death rate in domestic violence. Sure you can kill someone with a knife or hang yourself with a rope but the odds are that victims of such crimes have a much better chance of living if they were not shot. Same goes for attempted hangings.

 

Everyone has focused on the criminal point of the argument and enforcement but have failed to tackle the heart of the issue. Do guns kill more people unnecessarily in society? If so we need less of them. For any of you who have unnecessarily lost a love one, one such extra death is too many.

 

Ok well first off how do you figure guns are the most efficient way of killing? It may make it fairly easy and separate you from a person but it is far from efficient. As for Hanging I was referring to Suicides... Knives and blunt instruments account for much more violent crime than the 1.4% firearms does in Canada. Ohh and If you are hung you will die, either from a severance of the spine from you're head or strangulation... And again, banning guns increases violent crimes significantly ie. Britain where "A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned." (BBC News, 2001) "The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000. (BBC, 2001). Might want to study some numbers, they clearly show the results... ohh and as mentioned the same occured in other countries as well (Wales, Australia)

[Guest lundboy]

Lundboy... I don't think Miller or any of his croney's are anywhere near smart enough to be doing that on purpose... however I will no argue that they may well be being manipulated by higher forces.... the dude's just not smart enough to come up with that! LOL

HH

 

Agreed he is just following orders... But I wouldn't be too sure of him not being smart enough:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Miller_...ian_politician)

 

"Miller was born in San Francisco, California. His American father, Joe Miller, died of cancer in 1960, and his English mother Joan returned with her son to Thriplow, south of Cambridge.^[1] Miller spent his earliest years in England before moving to Canada with his mother in 1967. He attended Lakefield College School on a scholarship at the time Prince Andrew was a student there. ^[2]

 

Miller completed a four-year undergraduate degree at Harvard University, graduating magna cum laude in Economics in 1981. He earned a Bachelor of Laws degree from the University of Toronto Law School in 1984 and became a partner at the prominent Toronto law firm of Aird & Berlis LLP, specializing in employment, immigration law and shareholder rights.^[3] He represented Toronto Islands residents in a 1985 arbitration case while an articling student, and later described this experience as his introduction to municipal politics.^[4] He married fellow lawyer Jill Arthur in 1994. The pair have two children. Miller joined the New Democratic Party (NDP) in 1985, and has a picture of former NDP leader Tommy Douglas displayed on his office wall.^[5]"

 

Does a man with the credentials and connections like Miller, make the huge bumbling mistakes and budgeting errors by accident? Maybe.

 

Not mentioned is the fact that Miller denounced his party affiliation shortly after re-election, coincidentally about the same time several other Mayor's (in North America and Britain) denounced their party affiliations (Bloomberg of NY being one of them). A big slap in the face to Miller's NDP supporting voters.

 

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/204293

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/...an-affiliation/

Edited May 28, 2008 by lundboy

[Cookslav]

Put simply guns are the most efficient way to kill people.

 

Ummm.....no way.

Have you heard of Chuck norris?

[Sinker]

Ummm.....no way.

Have you heard of Chuck norris?

 

[scuro]

Not a lot of actual communication actually happened on this thread. Basically it was a bash thread and anyone who disagreed with the dominant viewpoint was sent up the flagpole as well. Saw a lot of character assination of any politician or institution remotely involved with this issue. Mocking of any viewpoint that countered majority opinion was the favorite tactic.

 

I've argued in the past against having bash threads on the main fishing forum. This thread is a perfect example of why that should be done. Really these threads do nothing but divide this community.

[Sinker]

Not a lot of actual communication actually happened on this thread. Basically it was a bash thread and anyone who disagreed with the dominant viewpoint was sent up the flagpole as well. Saw a lot of character assination of any politician or institution remotely involved with this issue. Mocking of any viewpoint that countered majority opinion was the favorite tactic.

 

I've argued in the past against having bash threads on the main fishing forum. This thread is a perfect example of why that should be done. Really these threads do nothing but divide this community.

 

Put up some facts to sway the majority, and you may not feel so divided.

 

Show me some CANADIAN facts regarding LEGALLY owned guns used for crime. Show me something that proves murderers are using registered guns. How many registered guns have been used in crimes since the registry came to be? How many gun related offences have taken place with registered, legally owned guns? I'd love to see some facts. The problem is.....you won't find many.....hmmmm.....I wonder why???

 

IMO, strict ENFORCEMENT is the key to gun control ........period......banning them won't change a thing. There will always be guns, legal or not. Deal with the REAL criminals, not legal gun owners.

 

Sinker

[huntervasili]

I know there was no mocking on my behalf... If you interpreted it that way, so be it, it was unintended. I was only providing the counter arguments to what you believe to be true.

[JohnF]

I know there was no mocking on my behalf... If you interpreted it that way, so be it, it was unintended. I was only providing the counter arguments to what you believe to be true.

 

I didn't see a lot of mocking or bashing either, just emotion. I'm not a gun owner or a hunter but I respect the right of those who have a legal use for guns, or at least their right to the right to have guns. There's too much over-reaction being offered as a "solution" without much practical thought behind it. For the same reasons that some would have guns banned one could then argue that too many other useful items should be banned as well, and that only points out the irrationality behind some of the proposals like shutting down the gun ranges. Cars, farm machinery, tobacco and liquor are just a few of the most obvious ones that come to mind. Strikes me that this fear some folks have for guns would be more realistically directed at the outlaw gun users. Identify them and you'll soon realize that even if there was a way to deprive them of their guns, they'd still find ways to abuse the law-abiding public. Taking guns away from the responsible folks will do nothing of note to reduce the number of guns in criminal hands.

 

To me those who call for wholesale gun elimination are placing themselves right alongside the P3TA folks who call for an all-out ban on fishing, and we know how that goes over in this crowd - it's selfish, irrational and unfair.

 

Everyones' energy would be better spent supporting practical solutions that stand a chance of working to reduce gun related crime, not devising bandaids that will fall off as quick as they're applied and will only penalize the law-abiding folks.

 

JF