TAKE AIM AT 'TOY' GUNS (Ottawa Sun)

[Mudder]

Has someone written in a response/rebuttal to Therien's letter yet?

[mcguyver]

Originally Posted by Brian McIlmoyle

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.

This is the best that the gun owners in Canada are ever going to get:

Decriminalize possession of firearms. This would require some penalties, like seizure and fines, but no criminal record and certainly not prison time. This will be the toughest battle by far, and requires a complete repeal of C-68 and a rebuild from the ground up.

No license for non-restricted. This goes back to 2001, when the last of the FACs expired. Under the FAC, you did not need a license in any form to possess non-restricted, but you did need one to acquire firearms. The selling point of the safety and accountability of firearms owners has been the PAL system. It is the cornerstone of C-68, but considering at best 1/2 (and more likely 1/3) of all gun owners in Canada have a PAL (and 20% are in arrears and failed to re-apply this past year), it is not a big stretch of reality. However, that effectively guts 90% of all gun control in Canada.

The scraps of what's left of C-68 won't really matter much if the above comes to pass. But any form of carry (open or concealed) will NEVER be tolerated in Canada. By Canada, I mean Toronto and Quebec, the places that really matter. The rest is merely suburbs, and don't matter much in the grand social scheme of gun control in Canada.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Gun control has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with control.

The last 3 decades of Liberal civil servants aren't concerned with who is actually in Parliament, they will run their departments as they see fit. And seeing as the CFC is totally run by civil servants with the power of OIC, change will not come easy, only an act of Parliament will change that. Not public opinion or even the Minister can change that. Those with control will not give it up without a fight.

We shall see. I've been a licensed firearm owner since 1989, and I see little in the way of change likely to be effected. Bil C-391 is barely in committee, and it's passage on 3rd reading is by no means a slam-dunk, nor is it's passage in the Senate a slam-dunk neither.

[Lakonian]

Airsoft guns do not contribute to society. They are responsible for %45 of gun crime, and are far too easy to get a hold of. There must be an outright ban, and confiscation process for current "collectors". There is simply NO purpose, or need for these in our progressive society.

....

And how many of you supported this argument for "real steel" ? Welcome to the inevitable.

[Ronan]

Instead of arguing here, how about writting a response to that mail or something.

Happy New Year!

[Blitzed]

Basically a letter by a soccer mom whom has NOT really done all of her research.. Like someone before has said i guess people dont know the meaning behind the word "Airsoft" these days.

Now before they go banning REPLICAS, should'nt this soccer mom be trying to ban actualy real steel FIREARMS which can actually cause some serious/dangerous/fatalities? I hate it when people do this or argue this. Use the common sense really.

It's almost like banning hot wheels cars because they look like real cars. Of course thats a terrible exaggeration, but really same concept. Arrrhg, sometimes i just don't like people..

[Sha Do]

Originally Posted by Double Tapper

....Shockingly, the Hazardous Products Act does not regulate these items, even though stuffed toys are.

These products have wreaked more havoc and injury than many products regulated under that 40-year-old act. Bringing the manufacturer and sale of pellet guns under the authority of this act would provide a measure of safety and an important step in protecting Canadians.
.....

I can't believe that this moron is grouping the chemical/chocking hazard restriction/regulation of stuffed toys onto the issue of pellet guns. It's not like you can shoot or threaten anyone with a stuffed toy, or that holding your AEG for to long is going to cause respiratory problems ......unreal.

SHA DO

[Double Tapper]

Oh thanks SHa Do,it looked like I typed that in your quote.
Maybe they are thinking that some airsofter out there might
start chewing on his/her gun and get lead poisoning.

[Lakonian]

Originally Posted by Blitzed

Basically a letter by a soccer mom whom has NOT really done all of her research.. Like someone before has said i guess people dont know the meaning behind the word "Airsoft" these days.

Now before they go banning REPLICAS, should'nt this soccer mom be trying to ban actualy real steel FIREARMS which can actually cause some serious/dangerous/fatalities? I hate it when people do this or argue this. Use the common sense really.

It's almost like banning hot wheels cars because they look like real cars. Of course thats a terrible exaggeration, but really same concept. Arrrhg, sometimes i just don't like people..

And you'd be the expert on researching and common sense, right?

Get a clue, mate.

[AS92-RD]

Originally Posted by youngguns

guns are NOT the problem when it comes to a crime. If there were no such things as guns, people would use knives, phone books and other objects. If one is going to commit a crime with the intent to kill, he will do just that,

word

[MoreToasties]

Originally Posted by AS92-RD

word

Car = tool.

Knife = tool bordering on weapon

Gun = weapon.

Obviously purpose plays a factor along with intent. I believe Brian mentioned this earlier.

[Conker]

They should learn to appreciate natural selection.

Someone threatening another with a gun, replica or whatever, then not complying or threatening officers... Well, he's dumb and while I don't wish that person's death, I won't mourn him either. He just had to use his mind. If he had one.

Actually, a replica or low-power airgun simply makes this situation dangerous for the criminal himself and no one else, as assuming he decided to shoot, he wouldn't be able to cause serious harm to anyone.

The only situation I can see that could cause a problem IMO is if that person was a kid who doesn't really know what he's doing, and in that case in comes down to responsibility from people around (friends, parents, family,...) to put any airgun/replica out of the kid's reach, and properly store it.

[Conker]

Originally Posted by youngguns

Guns are NOT the problem when it comes to a crime. If there were no such things as guns, people would use knives, phone books and other objects. If one is going to commit a crime with the intent to kill, he will do just that,

Originally Posted by MoreToasties

Car = tool.

Knife = tool bordering on weapon

Gun = weapon.

Obviously purpose plays a factor along with intent. I believe Brian mentioned this earlier.

MoreToasties, you ain't wrong, nor is Brian, however what youngguns said is still true. Without a gun, someone intending to kill another will be able to find something else for sure, and guns still have purposes other than as a tool to kill.

I persist to believe that the bottom of the problem is people.

[Deaf_shooter]

weapon: a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage

if person can use phone book to injures or kills other person then it is weapon.

gun is merely tools person used to kill. remove guns will not change if person has desire to kill other person. It is act as catalysis in reaction if you think this way. (make it more easier for person to achieve goal)

[MoreToasties]

Originally Posted by Deaf_shooter

weapon: a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage

if person can use phone book to injures or kills other person then it is weapon.

Yes but I am talking about the designated purpose of these things, rather then their possible purposes under different circumstances.

[Deaf_shooter]

Originally Posted by MoreToasties

Yes but I am talking about the designated purpose of these things, rather then their possible purposes under different circumstances.

well yes, but not all guns are made for kill people. some guns is design for hunting, or other activity that don't involve with killing person.

If I remember correct, several gun invention was design for hunting animals or result from hunting animals.