TAKE AIM AT 'TOY' GUNS (Ottawa Sun)

[Brian McIlmoyle]

Originally Posted by mcguyver

Any object is a weapon if used offensively. If it is not used offensively, it is not a weapon.

That means that there are over 20 million firearms in Canada that are by definition not weapons. They are firearms, nothing more, nothing less.

Only about 200 selected firearms are weapons used to kill. There are thousands more that are used to intimidate or to injure. But only those specific examples are weapons, not all guns of the same make or model, and certainly not all guns completely.

As soon as you transpose the word weapon with gun, you have lost your right to keep them. Nobody needs weapons, weapons kill and injure. Guns do nothing of the sort.

Sorry to trot out the rhetoric, but "Guns don't kill people. People kill people".

Again Semantics... NO ONE believes that Firearms are not weapons NO one believes that Swords are not weapons.. This is the basis of the ANTI Movement.. that people don't "need" weapons.

And I agree it is very likely that I will never need a weapon... but i'd certainly rather not need one and not have one.

This is at it's root the inherent weakness of the PRO movement.. that is is too reliant on semantic arguments.

You can say all you want that firearms are not weapons.. the issue is that the people who want to take them from you don't believe you. And so that argument is MOOT .. and starts to become a "black Knight" argument..
"your arms off! no it's not.. it's just a fleshwound"

If the PRO gun lobby's only argument is based on the fallacy that firearms are not weapons.. it's doomed because in the perception of any "reasonable man" they are.. regardless of if they are on a shelf or in a holster on someone's hip.

The argument has to move past that to an issue that is more deep.. and addresses issues beyond the right of an individual to possess harmless property.

[mcguyver]

Originally Posted by Brian McIlmoyle

The argument has to move past that to an issue that is more deep.. and addresses issues beyond the right of an individual to possess harmless property.

But it can't be harmless property if it is a weapon. See how easy that was?

Either it is a weapon or it is property, it can't be both, not in our society.

Guns are tools, they are inanimate objects, or they are evil weapons.

We have to pick one and stick to it, no matter what the ANTIs believe.

[Kokanee]

If you google this "Emile Therien", he's actually the President of the "Canadian Safety Council", the same fellow who was in the news two weeks ago for saying Coach’s Corner “has been a willing participant in condoning violence and fighting in hockey.”

http://jezz.ca/archives/2004/03/13/emile-therien-idiot/

Wonder why he didn't put "Canadian Safety Council" below his name instead of "PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ADVOCATE"...

[lemonparty forever]

If this "Replica Registration" goes though, will we have as much trouble at the border? I mean if the guns can only be sold to a license holder, wouldn't it remove the import ban?

[Brian McIlmoyle]

Originally Posted by mcguyver

But it can't be harmless property if it is a weapon. See how easy that was?

Either it is a weapon or it is property, it can't be both, not in our society.

Guns are tools, they are inanimate objects, or they are evil weapons.

We have to pick one and stick to it, no matter what the ANTIs believe.

I agree , thanks for making my point .. the counter argument to that is meaningless to any reasonable person.

My point is .. the argument CAN"T BE about If they are weapons .. the argument has to be about my right to have them BECAUSE they are weapons

[Brian McIlmoyle]

Originally Posted by Gospelnut

If this "Replica Registration" goes though, will we have as much trouble at the border? I mean if the guns can only be sold to a license holder, wouldn't it remove the import ban?

There is no "replica registration" to go through it's all Idle speculation

[lemonparty forever]

Originally Posted by Brian McIlmoyle

There is no "replica registration" to go through it's all Idle speculation

I know that, I was just speculating.

[The Saint]

Originally Posted by mcguyver

Either it is a weapon or it is property, it can't be both, not in our society.

That's not how the legal definition of weapon works....

And giving into the idea that all weapons are evil is self-defeating. That's buying into ANTI's tagline and the last thing any self-proclaimed PRO should do. By law, weapons aren't evil, evil intent are evil. If you give into the silly notion that weapons can be evil, you might as well bury your guns now because your guns will never, ever be safe.

Brian's right, pro-gun arguments steeped in the same rhetorical BS as the anti-gun arguments is counter productive. It just makes it impossible to deal with the issue in a logical manner, because both sides are arguing from extremes that doesn't work.

The biggest enemy of gun ownership isn't the so-called ANTIs, it's the way the extreme PRO and ANTI drown out rational discourse with a lot of chest pounding.

[mcguyver]

Originally Posted by Brian McIlmoyle

I agree , thanks for making my point .. the counter argument to that is meaningless to any reasonable person.

My point is .. the argument CAN"T BE about If they are weapons .. the argument has to be about my right to have them BECAUSE they are weapons

And that argument won't fly in Canada, ever. Canadians have been precluded by law from carrying a weapon for 2 generations now, since the 1970's. You ain't gonna get the horse back into the barn after that amount of time in pasture.

So then what?

[mcguyver]

Originally Posted by The Saint

That's not how the legal definition of weapon works....

And giving into the idea that all weapons are evil is self-defeating. That's buying into ANTI's tagline and the last thing any self-proclaimed PRO should do. By law, weapons aren't evil, evil intent are evil. If you give into the silly notion that weapons can be evil, you might as well bury your guns now because your guns will never, ever be safe.

Brian's right, pro-gun arguments steeped in the same rhetorical BS as the anti-gun arguments is counter productive. It just makes it impossible to deal with the issue in a logical manner, because both sides are arguing from extremes that doesn't work.

The biggest enemy of gun ownership isn't the so-called ANTIs, it's the way the extreme PRO and ANTI drown out rational discourse with a lot of chest pounding.

And your point is what, exactly?

Our current round of laws was rammed through Parliament with suspended debate in a mjority goverment. Lobbyists were paid to lobby the government by the government (Kim Doran and Wendy Cukier and the CGC) for just such an act.

Now, we have a generation born and bred to hate guns, fear them, and demand their removal at worst and severe restrictions at best.

You are not ever going to win the argument that guns are not dangerous weapons that people don't need, like you aren't going to win the argument that explosives or martial arts weapons should be unregulated.

So, then what?

Are people simply going to allow guns because other people like the idea? Get serious. There are times when you have to fight fire with fire, as gun owners and pro-gun advocates don't have any water.

[The Saint]

What's your point, Mcguyver? If you believe that you are right about the state of affair, the fight's already over, Canada is unrecoverably lost for gun owners, and the so-called PROs are nothing but whiners with no chance.

If the ANTIs were as successful as you believe, there should've been consistent support and a steady tabling of even more severe firearm bills since C-68, geared towards getting rid of guns, period. Nope, the only notable firearm reform bill that has gotten any traction in parliament since C-68 is to remove non-restricted registration.

I know plenty of people who wouldn't own firearms, but wouldn't ban them neither.

If the traditional PRO gun ilks believe that they are the only ones who supports firearm ownership, and anyone who doesn't own a firearm is an ANTI, no wonder they think all of Canada is out to get them. They spend more time preaching to the chore than trying to make a believable argument to the public, because they think the public is already lost.

[mcguyver]

Originally Posted by The Saint

What's your point, Mcguyver? If you believe that you are right about the state of affair, the fight's already over, Canada is unrecoverably lost for gun owners, and the so-called PROs are nothing but whiners with no chance.

The fight for gun owners is over. We lost.

Now, we are fighting back from a position of loss to regain rights that have been legislated away. They are gone now. Not much more to lose, is there?

Originally Posted by The Saint

If the ANTIs were as successful as you believe, there should've been consistent support and a steady tabling of even more severe firearm bills since C-68, geared towards getting rid of guns, period. Nope, the only notable firearm reform bill that has gotten any traction in parliament since C-68 is to remove non-restricted registration.

There is no need for anymore legislation. Firearms possession is prohibited in Canada, period. The goverment issues you a "get out of jail free" card that is our PAL system. The second that it or any of the requirements to obtain it expire, you are a criminal. This is a revolving cycle of legal, illegal, legal, etc. How much more illegal can you make something that is already illegal?

Add to this the power of the OIC to institute a nationwide ban and confiscation program that never has to come before Parliament. What more could you possibly legislate?

Originally Posted by The Saint

I know plenty of people who wouldn't own firearms, but wouldn't ban them neither.

If the traditional PRO gun ilks believe that they are the only ones who supports firearm ownership, and anyone who doesn't own a firearm is an ANTI, no wonder they think all of Canada is out to get them. They spend more time preaching to the chore than trying to make a believable argument to the public, because they think the public is already lost.

I'm sure there are lots of people who believe in basic rights like property, search and seizure protections, but unless they are a gun owner, they are not going to be losing those in the way gun owners already have. Will they fight for my rights? Not likely.

Tell me, how would you frame a statement (that will receive media attention) about the right to self-defense and the right to own firearms (and be able to keep them on you and ready to perform said defense)?

It's easy to talk the talk when you don't have to walk the walk.

[The Saint]

Originally Posted by mcguyver

There is no need for anymore legislation. Firearms possession is prohibited in Canada, period. The goverment issues you a "get out of jail free" card that is our PAL system. The second that it or any of the requirements to obtain it expire, you are a criminal. This is a revolving cycle of legal, illegal, legal, etc. How much more illegal can you make something that is already illegal?

That undermines the system in favour of gun owners by setting a precedence against the effectiveness of the system. Someone just has to be clever enough to table a sunset clause for C-68 and push it far enough to get some serious debate time.

Tell me, how would you frame a statement (that will receive media attention) about the right to self-defense and the right to own firearms (and be able to keep them on you and ready to perform said defense)?

Wait until someone shoots a serial murder whose MO is breaking and entering.

Fishing for media attention with statements when no underlyding headline exists doesn't work any better for the ANTI than it would the pro. Any public policy making/breaking is highly dependent on current events.

It's easy to talk the talk when you don't have to walk the walk.

It's easy to phrase additional gun measure as costly, ineffective and a waste of time. I would say that the relatively smoothness for the current push for removing unrestricted firearm registration has more to do than with a practical message of "this is a waste of money and time and provides a false sense of security (which is worse than no security)" than any of the PRO's high ideals about gun rights. Again, rights-based message mostly reaches people who already care about guns, but government waste and bad policy always has new audiences.

[Double Tapper]

Originally Posted by MoreToasties

You might want to edit your link, theres a space in the http.

Anyways, interesting. It's amazing how airsoft is always lumped in with the hooligans that buy pellet guns to shoot their neighbour's cat.

Habit from the other forum to not hot link,you still figured it out though.

[Brian McIlmoyle]

Originally Posted by mcguyver

And that argument won't fly in Canada, ever. Canadians have been precluded by law from carrying a weapon for 2 generations now, since the 1970's. You ain't gonna get the horse back into the barn after that amount of time in pasture.

So then what?

Ever ... is a very long time..

At this point the effort has to be on creating a rational dialog.

If ... IF the long gun registry is abolished..It is possible to point at how ineffective and Emotionally motivated legislation can be re-approached from a more rational direction.

There are Valid points on both sides of the equation.. It is not likely that we will ever see a significant effective change in the underlying legislation that exists to restrict ownership of firearms in Canada.

I seriously doubt that we will EVER see concealed carry permits issued on a "shall issue" basis in Canada.

but lots of people said that "the long gun registry is here to stay" as well.