The Great Gun Control Debate

[redleafjumper]

Apparently, writing letters and calling MPs does work sometimes.  Here is an article that apparently retracts the ban.

Redleafjumper

PUBLICATION:  The Ottawa Citizen
DATE:  2005.02.10
BYLINE:  Tim Naumetz

Justice Minister Irwin Cotler said yesterday that a letter he wrote to a gun owner announcing plans to ban the Ruger Mini 14 semi-automatic rifle during the current session of Parliament was a mistake.

Mr. Cotler said the government has no plans at this time to ban the weapon, which was used by mass murderer Marc Lepine to kill 14 women at a Montreal engineering college in 1989.

He was responding to a furore among gun owners across Canada this week caused when Conservative MP Garry Breitkreuz published the letter on his website last Friday.

An aide to Mr. Breitkreuz said yesterday his office was flooded with e-mails from incensed gun owners who believed the letter was proof the government has a secret plan to prohibit all semi-automatic rifles.

In response, Mr. Breitkreuz circulated an e-mail challenging the government to prove the Ruger Mini 14, which Mr. Lepine used when he randomly gunned down women at Montreal's Ecole Polytechnique, is a threat to public safety while "in the hands of a law-abiding firearm owner."

By late yesterday, the controversy caught up to Mr. Cotler, who tracked Mr. Breitkreuz down in Parliament to inform him the letter to the anonymous gun owner was incorrect and he would be writing a second letter to retract the first one.

An aide to Mr. Cotler said the government has no plans to ban the rifle during this session of Parliament, and Mr. Cotler signed the letter "in error."

"The minister's office takes full responsibility," said communications director Denise Rudnicki, who added "no decision" has been taken on banning the Ruger Mini 14 at this time.

In the Jan. 27 letter he wrote to the anonymous gun owner, Mr. Cotler said Public Safety Minister Anne McLellan, the former justice minister, had forwarded correspondence about the Mini 14.

"The Government of Canada is committed to introducing legislation to prohibit the Ruger Mini 14 at the earliest opportunity during this session of Parliament," Mr. Cotler wrote.

While Ms. McLellan is responsible for the Canada Firearms Act, Mr. Cotler is responsible for Criminal Code provisions for prohibited weapons.

The Mini 14, a lightweight .223-calibre rifle equipped with a magazine that can legally hold up to five bullets, is used by farmers and ranchers to hunt small game and control pests. Former justice minister Allan Rock said in 1995 when he introduced the Firearms Act that the government intended to ban the gun, but no action has been taken since.

The Firearms Act, passed in 1998, prohibited 21 weapons that had been restricted under previous gun laws, including military assault weapons such as the AK-47. Gun enthusiasts who were registered owners of the weapons prior to 1995 were allowed to keep them for life, but could not transfer them or sell them to other people.

 

[my72jeep]

OK now lets ban all assault Weapons we hear about in the news lately
1. pitbulls
2. hockey mom's/dad's
3. hockey sticks
4. baseball bats
5. beer bottles
6. Fords/gmc's/dodge
mostly harmless objects but they all can kill if in the wrong hands does any one else have any thing to add to this list.

 

[Ghost]

Why don't they ban snowboard leashes

They have to be the most useless things ever.

 

[mo-litia]

(removed by moderator for lack of insightful comment)

 

[mo-litia]

Guess I should have read to the end of the posts . . . I see Marty seems to have already sodded off!

Glad to see 98% of the views here were supportive of gun ownership

 

[I_Drive_Planes]

You know one thing that I truly love about Army.ca is that I very seldom have to say anything.  It seems inevitable that someone will say exactly what I had to say better, and more eloquently than I could have.  So to all who replied to that Marty fellow, I say thank you for taking the words out of my mouth! 

 

[Glorified Ape]

It seems a common argument against gun control is that it's the people, not the guns that do the killing. This is often used in conjunction with examples such as legally available blunt instruments, knives etc. that are used to kill. I think that's a valid argument to some degree.

However, if that argument applies to firearms in the way advocates intend it to, does that mean we should legalize RPG's, artillery pieces, hand grenades, and other weapons? If the "I want to have fun with it" argument is valid, it can be advanced for each of those items likewise. I'm not necessarily taking a side on gun control, only pointing out what I see as a fundamental flaw in the reasoning advanced by some firearms advocates.

 

[Infanteer]

Ape,

Semi-Automatic Rifles have valid uses to people who own them.  Their use in Shooting Matches and Tournaments is a good example.

As well, "semi-automatic" is a boogy-man argument by gun control advocates - they are no more dangerous then a bolt-action rifle in the hands of someone who can use it right.

RPGs, Mortars, and Grenades have no real purpose other then to kill (unless their is some Anti-Tank Enthusiasts Organization I am not aware of).

I'm not too heavily involved in this debate, these are only facts that seem starkly obvious to me after being around weapons for the last few years.

 

[Slim]

Hey...Here's an idea...

Lets keep the Mini 14 and the AR 15 and ban the Liberal party...

As for the proposed ban. It has nothing to do with safety and everything   to do with politics. The gov't couldn't care less about what responsible gun owners in Canada think...They're busy pandering to the braless ones who DEMAND that guns be taken away.

Slowly but surely this is what is happening. Soon only the criminals will have them.

Slim

 

[Glorified Ape]

Ape,

Semi-Automatic Rifles have valid uses to people who own them.   Their use in Shooting Matches and Tournaments is a good example.

As well, "semi-automatic" is a boogy-man argument by gun control advocates - they are no more dangerous then a bolt-action rifle in the hands of someone who can use it right.

RPGs, Mortars, and Grenades have no real purpose other then to kill (unless their is some Anti-Tank Enthusiasts Organization I am not aware of).

I'm not too heavily involved in this debate, these are only facts that seem starkly obvious to me after being around weapons for the last few years.

Good points. I just can't understand the "reacreation" argument for gun ownership, though. I understand WHY owners want to have firearms and such - it's good fun to go shooting, but I just don't see it as a convincing argument for making firearms available to the public. One could argue that recreational mortar or RPG use should be allowed by the same token. Aside from hunting or vermin control, I can't see any practical need for someone to own a firearm and even then it's highly unlikely that a person NEEDS to hunt. I don't think firearms should be completely inaccessible, but that they should be available only to those that need them, such as farmers.

If we accept the recreational/fun argument, we have to recognize that it applies to ridiculously unnecessary weapons too, since for the overwhelming majority of firearms owners, a firearm itself is ridiculously unnecessary to anything but their recreational enjoyment. I agree - RPG's, mortars, etc. exist solely to kill. As do firearms, if one removes the recreational shooting aspect. If "recreational enjoyment" is sufficient cause to give the public access to intentionally lethal implements, why draw the line at firearms?

 

[Infanteer]

I just can't understand the "reacreation" argument for gun ownership, though.   I understand WHY owners want to have firearms and such - it's good fun to go shooting, but I just don't see it as a convincing argument for making firearms available to the public.

Well, what are your hobbies?   Just because you may not be a sport shooter or a firearms enthusiast doesn't automatically invalidate the hobby, does it?   I know you're smarter then to say "yes".  

Do you feel the need to justify something you do on your own spare time to others?   Banning activities because of their social usefullness is silly (get rid of board games, Pokemon, and Nintendo) and smacks of something out of 1984.

One could argue that recreational mortar or RPG use should be allowed by the same token.

I think one could reasonably draw the line on these because they are inherently extremely dangerous (having been around both) and that their use will most likely most likely not be worth the risk involved in allowing people to use them privately.

Clearly, most firearms do not fit in this category of "risk".   A car and a gun can be equally lethal if used wrong, but the extent and the danger is not so extreme to justify banning either.   If there wasn't a great chance of handfuls of people being killed or seriously injured everytime a high explosive mortar or RPG was used, then I would have no problem with them being available.

Aside from hunting or vermin control, I can't see any practical need for someone to own a firearm and even then it's highly unlikely that a person NEEDS to hunt. I don't think firearms should be completely inaccessible, but that they should be available only to those that need them, such as farmers.

Again, firearms have other uses in the sport/collector areas.   Ever been in a biathlon?

I'm failing to see how your perception of gun-ownership should apply to everyone else?   You seem to argue vehemently enough against "group-think" in the politics forum - are people who enjoy firearms not worth that same protection?

If we accept the recreational/fun argument, we have to recognize that it applies to ridiculously unnecessary weapons too, since for the overwhelming majority of firearms owners, a firearm itself is ridiculously unnecessary to anything but their recreational enjoyment.   I agree - RPG's, mortars, etc. exist solely to kill. As do firearms, if one removes the recreational shooting aspect. If "recreational enjoyment" is sufficient cause to give the public access to intentionally lethal implements, why draw the line at firearms?

See the "risk" concept above - an AR-15 with a legal 5 round mag and a Rocket Propelled Grenade are two different things.

Again, you seem awefully keen to deny the right of an individual citizen, who has displayed that he is responsible enough (through an FAC), to own a firearm.

A firearm, like a bow and arrow, a knife or a car, is a tool.   Since they are potentially lethal tools, there is a requisite level of responsibility that needs to be displayed for the safety of others before one can use it (which is done).   Beyond that, it is really none of your business what a person wants to own or do on with their spare time.   Your personal attitude leads you to believe that they are unnecessary in the hands of civilians.   So where are YOU going to draw the line on what other citizens can do.   Pornography can be harmful if it is violent or exploitive - get rid of that to since it serves no purpose, right?

What one thinks about the value of firearms in specific is irrelevant.   If it isn't affecting you, bug off.   The fact that you seem to think that it is fair-game to restrict the freedoms of individuals to decide what they wish to do on their spare time (when it is done in an unoffending and responsible manner) is troubling.   If you do think that this is a good precedent, then I'm starting to wonder what exactly you've chosen to accept the Queen's Commission for?

PS: I've never bought a gun.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

. . . Guess when your regional economy is collapsed, wrapping your lips around the Liberal pole is preferable to starvation; and hey, how important can property rights be anyway?

Glad to see your arrogance and hatred for martimers has not gone away...retract your statement please or suffer the consequences.

 

[noreaga808]

Glorified Ape, anything used for recreactional purposes doesn't necessarily need a legitimate purpose other then to entertain you. Because of this there is no need to rationalize the existance of anything that is used for recreation because if we did everything fun wouldn't exist. We'd be all leading depressing, boring lives with no meaning other then to exist taking up space. Without entertainment and creative outlets we mine as well be single celled organisms. I do agree that the original intent of guns was for killing things but it doesn't have to solely be used for that purpose. People have found other productive means to use such a tool in a harmless alternative manner in competitive target sports. What I'm getting at is that not everything needs a practical purpose to serve humanity positively, entertainment is vital to our lives. Also when it comes to entertaining ones self it's all relative, what you like may not be what someone else likes. Variety is the spice of life.

Quote:
"If we accept the recreational/fun argument, we have to recognize that it applies to ridiculously unnecessary weapons too, since for the overwhelming majority of firearms owners, a firearm itself is ridiculously unnecessary to anything but their recreational enjoyment. I agree - RPG's, mortars, etc. exist solely to kill. As do firearms, if one removes the recreational shooting aspect. If "recreational enjoyment" is sufficient cause to give the public access to intentionally lethal implements, why draw the line at firearms?"

Have you ever thought of the origin of the baseball bat? It's a club. Clubs were used to kill things and are still being used today to kill things. According to your rational we should ban baseball bats and only allow hunters to use such an implement. As for RPG's and Mortars I can find fun ways to use them.  ;D As long as you're not hurting anyone then it's all good.

If I'm not making sense it's because its 5 AM, shift work is screwing up my sleeping pattern. Insomnia has settled in.

Edit: Hey Ape, no need to reply to my post. This arguement will just go on and on. The other posters on this subject that have the same feelings as myself are giving different valid points but for the most part we're all saying the same thing. I see no point in dragging this on any further. But if you feel like continuing the arguement or anyone else with the same sentiment then have at it because I'm sure that someone out there will be more then up to the challenge. I'm sure much more eloquently then I would be able to do.

 

[Farmboy]

I understand WHY owners want to have firearms and such - it's good fun to go shooting, but I just don't see it as a convincing argument for making firearms available to the public. One could argue that recreational mortar or RPG use should be allowed by the same token. Aside from hunting or vermin control, I can't see any practical need for someone to own a firearm and even then it's highly unlikely that a person NEEDS to hunt. I don't think firearms should be completely inaccessible, but that they should be available only to those that need them, such as farmers.

Yup only farmers should have firearms.  :

All of those who compete in the olympics, to bad, to compete in your sport you must first be a farmer.

Oh yeah all you collectors and museums must give your firearms to farmers.

Actually almost all my meat for the year comes from hunting, along with quite a few other guys I hunt with. I also live in Richmond Hill not out in the boonies some where. I don't need to hunt, because there is a grocery store close, however I like my meat to be free range and organic, and paying $25 at the store for one steak is brutal.

Recreational mortar or RPG, hmmm I can't think of any competitions being held for those at the moment.

What the outrage is about is
1. Private property and the fact that this government ignores it.

2. The banning of firearms because they look evil or come from military roots (even though most guns do).

    One semi auto rifle is the same as the next period. A bolt action in the right hands in about the same. So why ban one type of rifle??

3. Registration on top of licenses on top of "travel permission" for LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.

4. THE FACT THAT CRIMMINALS DON"T OBEY THE LAWS IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!


  The othe BS is that somthing should be banned because it was used in a bad way. Once again we can say knives, cars, bats, GASOLINE!! How many arsons do you here about all the time.

  Another argument we always hear for gun registration is "dogs have to be licensed" Yeah that's fine, DOGS CAN ACT ON THERE OWN WITHOUT A PERSON INVOLED.

  When was the last time you heard of a gun getting out of the house on it's own and killing a few kids.

How about the crime rates in the UK that rose 44% after most firearms were banned.

 

[Ghost]

Good luck getting your hands on an RPG they don't exactly hand thoose out.

 

[Gouki]

rofl ..

that entire "recreational" RPG and grenade thing is an absolutely ludicrous argument.

Let's see. With my bolt actions, one of my rounds will make a 1, 2 cm large wide hole at most (using my 22 cal) and with the Mosin, a hole about 3/4 to 1 inch. With an AR-15 or something similar, the impact sizes aren't terribly different, there will just be more of them.

One round from an RPG would take out the entire section 5 area of my range, send shrapnel flying everywhere, and would probably leave a few flaming pieces of wood.

With the rifles (bolt or semi) there is strategy to shooting, windages, elevations, blah blah you all know about it all. As already pointed out however, something like an RPG has none of this. It is -purely- designed to kill. While a gun is obviously in the end meant to kill things, it has the option of being used for other things. A friggen RPG or grenade or flamethrower or whatever other equally stupid comparison does not.

 

[1feral1]

Good luck getting your hands on an RPG they don't exactly hand thoose out.

They are around. the RPG2 ( I am sure there is the odd RPG 7 around too) and other Com Bloc equilivant. All legal in Canada to own, fully operational, but you can't own any ammo. Its also legal to possess M203s etc ( only star flares, smoke etc are legal ammo for them) as they are classed a 'flare launchers'. You can even own empty M72s too, and yes if you had a complete rocket for it, you could insert it as they can be reused - load just like the 21mm rocket. But that would be illegal   ;D

I bought my RPG 2 from Wolverine in Virden Manitoba about 15 yrs ago (he had many of them), and it can be seen at the Saskatchewan Military Museum on display (firing pin removed) in the Regina Armouries, in Regina. As of late, you can still encounter these at gun shows ( 2003).

You can also own artillery pieces too, fully functional. The gun laws do not include these things.

A wierd funky fact, but do not confuse US laws with Canadian ones, as in the USA things are different.

Here is a pic that i took in Jul 04 at a friend's, back in dear ole Canada who collects such. The ammo is inert, as the top 'rocket' is made of wood, and the bottom an actual inert collectors item. The launchers are real and servicable.

 

[P Kaye]

"remember that an attack on one single firearm is an attack on all firearms"

Did anybody else laugh when they read this???

>> The banning of firearms because they look evil or come from military roots (even though most guns do).

Do you honestly think that people wantn any kind firearms banned because they look evil?  Banning firearms comes from one simple fact: they can be very DANGEROUS, especially in the hands of criminals.  If we make it easier for criminals to access firearms, we increase the danger level to all of us.  Is my desire to shoot an assault rifle so strong that I am willing to accept that my children will live in a country that is less safe?  No.  If somebody really gets that excited about firing an assault rifle (a weapon whose sole purpose for existing is to kill people), then I say join the military and put that passion to good use.

This is a very emotional issue for both sides, but it seems that those in favour of gun-control are out-numbered here, so I wanted to add my support to that position.

 

[1feral1]

"remember that an attack on one single firearm is an attack on all firearms"

Did anybody else laugh when they read this???

If somebody really gets that excited about firing an assault rifle (a weapon whose sole purpose for existing is to kill people

I am not laughing its a fact, its the truth, and frankly Mr P kaye   :, I think you are just trying to stir up shyte here. How are 'we' making it easier for crims to get guns????

So, whats your opinion of the .303 Lee-Enfield and the German Mauser 7.92mm rifles??

These were military rifles and still are in some 3rd world countries (the .303 is still used by Canada's Rangers too), and combined have KILLED more people in the past 100yrs than all the modern military rifles on earth!

These rifles are magazine fed (10 rds for the .303), capable of having a bayonet fixed, and launching rifle grenades (HE Frag etc). I guess in your opinion these too are designed to KILL people and should be banned also.

Wake up!

 

[P Kaye]

>> I am not laughing its a fact, its the truth

A "fact" ??  It doesn't even mean anything... "an attack on all firearms"?  Give  me a break.


>> and frankly Mr P kaye  , I think you are just trying to stir up shyte here

Well frankly, Mr Wesley H. Allen, I think I am as free as anyone else to express an opinion here.  I am a big supporter of gun control in this country.

>> Wake up!

I don't generally like to lower myself to stupid attacks like this on people posting to this forum, but right now "grow up" comes to mind as a suitable response.