The Great Gun Control Debate

[The_Falcon]

Now this is a bit of a derail but using 'deaths' as a statistic to prove anything is safer is a shell game. There are less deaths because medicine's ability to save wounded people increases all the time.
I've seen the same lie [think it was Chicago a few years ago] where there was an article about how the murder rate had gone down and everyone [politicians, police] was trying to bask in the glory, and the thing that stood out to me, was the great spike in attempted murders.  So, in my opinion, what they were celebrating was the medical system or the incompetence of the local criminals.

Same in Toronto.  Gun death are more or less holding steady....# of shootings by gang member using illegal firearms has increased over the years, in conjuction with better/faster EMS-Trauma care so the idiots don't die.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

So I went today to get a membership at a local gun club and discovered that as well as the membership fee and mandatory orientation I have to pay to take an ATT course. I asked why I was required to do that since all the rules pertaining to safe transport of a restricted weapon were covered in the safety course? It was then explained to me that all gun clubs in ON require this as a prerequisite to members firing restricted weapons.

Do gun clubs in other provinces require this and does anyone else see this as a bit of a cash grab?

I'm in Ontario and a club member for a lot of years. I've never heard of it, sounds like a bullshit excuse to get more money out of you.

If your club of choice, indeed is just following instructions, ask to see the official bulletin from Herr Wyatt, because there is no way they can show you a law for it, because it doesn't exist.

If they can't show you an official document, run away very quickly and find another club.

Cause the one you're joining is full of Fudds  that'll demean, marginalize and treat you like a leper because you want to use pistols and black rifles.

And don't just ask to see it, tell them you want a copy, post it here and then we can start calling every Conservative member we can find and add it to Wyatt's muzzling.

BTW, I don't have the course and know nobody that has been required to take anything like it.

 

[KevinB]

In my view, the debate should be more focusing on the categories of gun rather than "should we have a  Gun Control System per se?" The industry always change its technology in order to get around the legislation. According to me, as a proud Canadian who believe in interventionist policies, Parliament must adopt a piece of legislation which stipulates that at each 4 years or so, we review the gun categories.

Why on earth would a civi need a semi, or worse, a fully automatic gun? thankfully, they are prohibited here in Canada. Thanks to our MPs. Anyway, even without any legislation, it would be justified by s. 1 of the Canadian Charter and the Court would declare unconstitutional the piece of legislation that Parliament allows this kind of silly and dangerous weapon. Too bad for the little wannabe soldiers and Call of Duty kids...

However, when I look at the Norinco type 97 and other black rifles which are on the non-restricted list (http://www.huntinggearguy.com/rifle-reviews/top-10-non-restricted-black-rifles-in-canada/),I seriously think Parliament still has homework to do. For God sake, why would you need these guns to go hunting. Be a man and use un bon 12 as we say in french.

By the way, we are not in the XVIIIth century anymore, USA are not at war with the hostile native tribes or Red Coats. I still do not understand why don't they simply adopt progressive policies on that matter. Eh? The constitution must evolve according to the society, one said. Well, 2nd Amendment does not and it still bring the USA 240 years back in the past.

Anyway, it was my editorial.

If you look at free societies, they are armed.  The Government should fear the people, least the people fear the Government.
  I would bet that Red China, the Soviet Union, Hitler's Germany, and the Pol Pot in Cambodia would have had a much tougher go at genocide with an armed public.

  Weapons are tools, not good nor bad - PEOPLE are the problem.

 

[Armynewsguy]

I'm in Ontario and a club member for a lot of years. I've never heard of it, sounds like a bullshit excuse to get more money out of you.

If your club of choice, indeed is just following instructions, ask to see the official bulletin from Herr Wyatt, because there is no way they can show you a law for it, because it doesn't exist.

If they can't show you an official document, run away very quickly and find another club.

Cause the one you're joining is full of Fudds  that'll demean, marginalize and treat you like a leper because you want to use pistols and black rifles.

And don't just ask to see it, tell them you want a copy, post it here and then we can start calling every Conservative member we can find and add it to Wyatt's muzzling.

BTW, I don't have the course and know nobody that has been required to take anything like it.

Oddly enough there was a guy at the range near Trenton yesterday administering this test. I asked him about it, and was told that all Ontario ranges have to give this test before they are allowed to grant an ATT for the range. The cost was $20.00 and the tester provided his weapons and ammo for the test. I think the whole process only took an hour or less.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

We know it's not a federal law, so I want to see it over Wyatt's signature before I believe it. He's going to get gutted soon enough anyway. At least before I reapply. I've held lots of ATTs and never heard of it.

 

[my72jeep]

My Range has an ATT/Restricted course that is mandatory. it is at no cost to members, 5 years ago when I did it they told me it was a CFO thing. it was taught by an older ex LEO lasted 2.5 hours. My Brother's range requires it plus a Holster course. the holster course was a joke taught by an idiot who spent the day telling my brother who is a LEO with 15 years on the job that he was doing it wrong according to his book.

 

[NavyShooter]

We have a mandatory range training course at our range.  (NO COST) to move members from probationary status to full membership.

This course is designed to help first time shooters with basic weapons handling and marksmanship. 

It is a form of due-diligence on the club's part to ensure that people whom we allow to access the range are unlikely to put (more) holes in the ceiling of the range.

There are and can be exemptions for it, for example your IPSC Black badge, etc, may qualify you for an exemption.

NS

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The range qualification thing is a standard course for noobs on almost any range.

You don't need Black Badge if you're not going to holster on the range or shoot IPSC.

We don't do any nonsense like a ATT course at my club, in Ontario. It's already all covered by the PAL and RPAL course.

Our ATT comes with our membership and is good for five years.

I guess YMMV.

I think any club charging for a separate ATT course is just hosing its members. Time to get more active in your club and take it away from the Fudds.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

OK, been doing some checking around.

The ATT course in question is really a club's general safety course. It normally entails some classroom and some range time.

Typically done with .22 cal pistols. It's the clubs way of ensuring you know how to conduct yourself on the range.

It really has little to do with an ATT, but I suppose some clubs call it that so as to lay the blame for them charging you at the feet of the CFO.

In essence, if you want to shoot at your club, and that club has a General Safety Course, you'll have to take it to shoot there.

They're easy enough for someone used to military rules and normally encompass things like muzzle safety, trigger finger control, how to hold, aim and fire a pistol and the club's firing line rules. Like I say, easy enough stuff for someone used to shooting in the military.

It has very little whatsoever, to do with ATT other than make it sound like it's the CFOs fault for making you pay and take it.

I did take it at my club. However, when they found out I was current military, the head guy just took me on the range, spoke about the club's firing line rules and had me perform the final handling test. So I didn't have to go through all the naus of the full course.

 

[Mr. St-Cyr]

Perhaps with the new "common sense' law that has been announced they will make your ATT course mandatory by removing your ability to just challenge the handing test !  >

 

[stealthylizard]

If this is the wrong spot, feel free to move it.

It doesn't help when the media is clueless about gun stuff.  This wasn't a Canadian reporter, but it shows the lack of knowledge.

 

[George Wallace]

If this is the wrong spot, feel free to move it.

It doesn't help when the media is clueless about gun stuff.  This wasn't a Canadian reporter, but it shows the lack of knowledge.

Sadly, that is eligible more for the WTF Files than here.  No wonder so many in the general public have little to no idea of what is being passed off as NEWS. 

 

[Jarnhamar]

edited

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Peter is a big boy with staff, if by now he can't decide what he wants to wear, then he is not fit for the job.

 

[Lightguns]

Agreed a big boy. As to field officer, that's what the NFA constitution calls them. It is quite appropriate, working under the provincial director they are volunteers who visit gun owners, clubs and businesses getting the word out in their local area. They also help legal gun owners in trouble by getting them in contact with gun friendly local lawyers. The do good work mostly at their own expense.  Up the NFA!

 

[Fishbone Jones]

So, what's wrong with the T-Shirt? :dunno:

I just see it as a continuation of the Conservative policy to stop CFOs, et al from treating us like criminals.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Edited my post. I could have spoken too soon so I'm going to look into it more before posting about it.  At first it very much appeared that they tricked McKay into putting the shirt on by getting an injured afghan vet to ask but as I said I may have jumped the gun.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

"tricking" a politician to wear your shirt does you no favours. You should be clear what the symbol represents, then they can decide to wear it or not.

 

[Edward Campbell]

"tricking" a politician to wear your shirt does you no favours. You should be clear what the symbol represents, then they can decide to wear it or not.

I agree, Minister MacKay was "fooled," and he knows it ... the NFA did not do itself or the firearms community any favours.

 

[McG]

I agree, Minister MacKay was "fooled," and he knows it ... the NFA did not do itself or the firearms community any favours.

Nor did the guy help the military and veteran communities when he used Afghan injuries as leverage to get the picture.