Iamon lyme: The police response time in some parts around here is over 15 minutes. That's why most of my rural friends are packing. Locked and loaded. (fully loaded and their guns are full of bullets too!)

;)

Iamon lyme: Well according to the gopher or muskrat or what ever that creature that sees its shadow is called, we're due for some local global warming very soon. And frankly, I can't wait. But I'll have to wait. So I guess I can wait. So why did I say I can't? I don't know. I need a shrink I think!

History of firearm laws in Canada

Controls on civilian use of firearms date from the early days of Confederation, when justices of the peace could impose penalties for carrying a handgun without reasonable cause.[7] Criminal Code of Canada amendments between the 1890s and the 1970s introduced a series of minor controls on firearms. In the late 1970s, controls of intermediate strength were introduced. In the mid 1990s, significant increases in controls occurred. A 1996 study showed that Canada was in the mid-range of firearm ownership when compared with eight other western nations. Nearly 22% of Canadian households had at least one firearm, including 2.3% of households possessing a handgun.[8] As of September 2010, the Canadian Firearms Program recorded a total of 1,831,327 valid firearm licences, which is roughly 5.4% of the Canadian population. The four most licensed provinces are Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia.[9] In 2005 almost 3% of households in Canada possessed handguns, compared to 18% of U.S. households that possessed handguns.[10] In 2005 almost 16% of households in Canada possessed firearms of some kind.[10]

The following is a summary of the history of gun control laws in Canada:[11][12]

The federal Parliament instituted a system of gun control in the North-West Territories in 1885 to hinder the Red River Rebellion for Metis rights. Permission in writing from the territorial government was needed to possess any firearm (other than a smooth-bore shotgun), and also ammunition. Possession of a firearm or ammunition without the necessary permit was an offence, and could lead to the forfeiture of the firearm and ammunition.[13] These gun control provisions applied to all of what is now Alberta, Saskatchewan, parts of Manitoba, the current Northwest Territories, Yukon, and Nunavut.
The Criminal Code of Canada enacted in 1892, required individuals to have a permit to carry a pistol unless the owner had cause to fear assault or injury. Not until 1935 was it considered an offence to sell a pistol to anyone under 16. Vendors who sold handguns had to keep records, including purchaser's name, the date of sale and a description of the gun.
In the 1920s, permits became necessary for all firearms newly acquired by foreigners.
Legislation in 1934 required the registration of handguns with records identifying the owner, the owner's address and the firearm. Registration certificates were issued and records kept by the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) or by other police forces designated by provincial attorneys general.
In 1947, the offence of “constructive murder” was added to the Criminal Code for offences resulting in death, when the offender carried a firearm. This offence was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in a 1987 case called R. v. Vaillancourt.
Automatic weapons were added to the category of firearms that had to be registered in 1951. The registry system was centralized under the Commissioner of the RCMP.
In 1969, Bill C-150 created categories of “non-restricted,” “restricted” and “prohibited” firearms. Police were also given preventive powers of search and seizure by judicial warrant if they had grounds to believe that firearms that belonged to an individual endangered the safety of society.
In 1977, Bill C-51 required firearms acquisition certificates (FACs) to purchase any firearm, and introduced controls on the selling of ammunition. Applicants were required to pass a basic criminal record check before receiving the FAC.
In 1991, Bill C-17 tightened up restrictions and established controls on numerous firearms with military background. Legislation also made changes to the FAC system. FAC applicants were now required to pass a firearms safety course, and a thorough background check, and wait a minimum of 28 days after applying for an FAC before being issued.

Finally, in addition to the above changes, laws were put into place that restricted ownership of high-capacity magazines: limiting handguns to ten rounds, and most semi-automatic centre-fire rifles to five rounds. Legislation was upheld by the Supreme Court in Reference re Firearms Act (2000). The FAC system was replaced with possession-only licences (POLs) and possession and acquisition licences (PALs). Referring to Bill C-68, John Dixon, a former advisor to Deputy Minister of Justice John C. Tait, stated that the Firearms Act was part of a policy exercise by the Liberal Party of Canada so as to appear to be "tougher" on guns than Prime Minister Kim Campbell, and thus defeat her in the 1993 election.[14]

In 2001, the registration portion of Bill C-68 was implemented. The government asks for all firearms, including long-guns (rifles and shotguns), to be registered.
In 2003, the registration of long-guns becomes mandatory. Failure to register a firearm now results in criminal charges.
As of 2006, while legislation is still in place, the government is no longer asking long gun owners for a registration fee and an amnesty (now extended until May 16, 2011) temporarily protects licensed owners of non-restricted firearms (or those whose licences have expired since January 1, 2004) from prosecution for the possession of unregistered long guns.[15]
In November 2009, Bill C-391 passed second reading in the House of Commons by a vote of 164 to 137. If passed through the entire parliamentary process by the House and Senate, the bill would have abolished the requirement to register non-restricted long guns. While the proposed legislation was a private member's bill, it had the support of the Conservative government. The bill was referred to the House of Commons Committee on Public Safety for further action. However, after several months of hearings, the Opposition majority on the committee recommended that no further action be taken to advance the bill. In September 2010 Bill C-391 failed to pass a third reading.
On October 25, 2011, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews introduced a bill to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act, to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all records.
On February 15, 2012, Bill C-19 passed third reading in the House of Commons; the motion to abolish the long-gun registry passed 159 to 130 and Bill C-19 became law.

Bwild: "theres a substanstial population difference."

LOL... sometimes it's like shooting fish in a barrel

(V): "You do want your police and feds armed don't you? Able to defend themselves while protecting your shores, towns and cities from crime!!"

Well of course, and the response times are impressive. When seconds count, the police can be there in minutes.

Artful Dodger: "ru napping?"

Well... yes and no. I've been sleeping a lot the past few weeks. But I also lost interest in the repeating topic cycles... like 'global warming'. I'm not against it, in fact I'm all for it and can't wait for it to get here. But this so called "crises" which has been brought to us by our concerned politicians (and the people who benefit from it) has proven to be nothing more than a lot of talk. My heating bills are just as high as they've always been. So anyway, phooey on all those promises of global warming... ya can't trust anyone these days, they'll lie to ya about anything!

The only time I felt like responding to anything was when you made a point about gun free zones being a joke. It's a bonehead idea that does nothing to solve the problem. It's like extending an invitation to anyone to just waltz right in and have their way long enough to do some real damage.

The best gun control argument I heard came from former Gov Huckabee... he said we have armed security at banks because we value our money. And we have armed security at hospitals because we value the patients. But we don't want armed security in our schools because... ?

Makes you wonder, doesn't it.

Bwild: Yeah but guns are not the problem. People are. Take away the guns and the killings will continue.

Artful Dodger: "They need to be stoned for being false prophets!"
I'm guessing they already are.
Übergeek 바둑이 : " At the current rates of killing, gun violence in the USA causes about 900 dead people per month, while sectarian violence in Iraq caused about 600 to 1000 dead per month (as of 2008, these days it is lower). Americans don't see it, but more Americans are being killed every month in the USA than Iraqis or Afghans in their respective countries. Even Mexico and Colombia with the drug-driven violence do not have the same rate of killing."
theres a substanstial population difference.

SL-Mark: Wow. That puts a perspective into the mix that's a bit scary. I wonder if the military would actually shoot at it's own?

(V): Pastors who predict the end are nut heads IMO. We can't know when the end will come. At least that's what the Bible tells us. I love the way they say the end will be such and such a date and then when it comes, they change the date. They need to be stoned for being false prophets!

Came across this, has some interesting opinions!

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/22-01-2013/123540-obama_gun_control-0/

Artful Dodger: Another one!! I saw some American pastor now stating the 'end is nigh' and the moon is telling us so.

.. Maybe we should put all the bloggers and hard line conspiracy people in one place and nuke 'em. ;)

.... No more conspiracies then. lol

(V): it's a conspiracy

Artful Dodger: ... they have armed guards. Just like I believe some shops do in the USA... or gated communities. I hear a newspaper hired armed guards recently as they pissed some people off.

..... Guess the weapons trade needs to keep employing!!

(V): And the social security needs it because?

Artful Dodger: Um... it appears they are.

"The reason most law enforcement agencies either issue or permit their officers to carry hollow-point ammunition is that when deadly force is authorized—when the immediate threat of serious physical injury or death to the officer, their partner, or someone else is present—hollow-point rounds have a better chance of stopping that threat without the risk of over penetration. In other words, the possibility of a through-and-through shot hitting someone it was not intended to hit is lessened. The goal is to step the threat without injuring or killing someone else in the process, and hollow-point ammunition helps do that."

http://www.lawofficer.com/article/tactics-and-weapons/short-history-hollow-points

(V): Hollow point bullets are against the Geneva convention. They are not legal for cops to use either. And US government agencies are stockpiling these bullets. Even the social security department order nearly 200,000 rounds. Law enforcement is one thing but the SS agency? No. And who needs 1.4 billion rounds of hollow point bullets? Why Homeland Security does. Who they gonna shoot? And why is it ok for the Feds to buy guns and ammo "for protection" but they are complaining that their citizens are exercising their Constitutional rights!

Artful Dodger: Well unless the US government is planning on killing millions of Americans to reduce 'costs' and replace you all with 'immigrants'.... ....

But...

"Agents carry .357-calibre pistols, Lasher said. The bullets, which add up to about 590 per agent, are for the upcoming fiscal year. Most will be expended on the firing range.
Hollow-points cause more tissue damage

Some bloggers have taken issue with the type of ammunition the agency is buying, questioning why agents need hollow-point bullets. Hollow-points are known for causing more tissue damage than other bullets when they hit a person because they expand when they enter the body.

The bullets, however, are standard issue for many law enforcement agencies, Lasher said, a fact confirmed by the directors of two law enforcement training centres.

"For practice ammunition, they do not have to be hollow-points, but hollow-points are the normal police round used for duty ammunition due to their ability to stop when they hit an object as opposed to going through it and striking more objects," said William J. Muldoon, president of the International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training."

You do want your police and feds armed don't you? Able to defend themselves while protecting your shores, towns and cities from crime!!

Iamon lyme: ru napping?

(V): Well the US government just purchased millions of rounds of hollow point bullets and one department that purchased these is the Treasury Dept! When asked why they needed so much ammo they answered "target practice." Sure

Artful Dodger: I'd accept target practice if they were a confirmed gun club member or owner... otherwise apart from some strange doomsday preppers, no one person needs 1000's of rounds. I think at one time the standard load for a soldier going into combat was only about 1500 rounds.

Btw.... "we already have over 20,000 gun laws (which includes local laws)."

Too many laws. ;P

Übergeek 바둑이: lol and I was just kidding about Google.

I think reasonable gun control measures are what we need BUT we already have over 20,000 gun laws (which includes local laws). It's doubtful that any new laws will have significant effect. I see politicians using the gun issue as a political tool. I don't even own a gun and probably never will. And I've been held up by two morons, each with a gun pointed at my head. But I'm still not opposed to gun ownership AND I favor concealed carry. In my case, the guys that robbed me got off. THAT'S the problem. Our laws are meaningless if they have no teeth. AND an underage kid carrying an illegal firearm gets NO TIME! He has to get caught 5 times before the law kicks in. How stupid is that? Anyway, there are things we can and should do but likely we will never agree as the Repubs and the Dumocrats LOVE to play politics.

(V): target shooting ;)

Artful Dodger:

> Likely the CIA has an insider working for Google. Or Google is a CIA front.

Reputedly, the two main founders of Google used to be NSA employees. Even if they were not, it is in Google's best interests to collaborate with intelligence services to stop possible threats. Can you imagine what it would do to the company if somebody said "Google could have warned everyone because they had network access to the information necessary to prevent this disaster"?

With respect to semi-automatic assault rifles, it is true that psychopaths and insane morons will use them to kill people, but then somebody who is disturbed will kill with or without assault rifles. The real problems is the impact of the attack. I am sure that Japan has just as much violent crime as the USA, the difference is that because guns are illegal in Japan, the death rate is a lot lower.

Three months of gun violence in the USA cause more death than the 9-11 attack did. At the current rates of killing, gun violence in the USA causes about 900 dead people per month, while sectarian violence in Iraq caused about 600 to 1000 dead per month (as of 2008, these days it is lower). Americans don't see it, but more Americans are being killed every month in the USA than Iraqis or Afghans in their respective countries. Even Mexico and Colombia with the drug-driven violence do not have the same rate of killing.

The big question is: is the killing due to easy access to guns or due to some other cultural factors? I think that access to guns is only a small part of the problem. There are economic issues, drug-trade issues, and a culture that has promoted violence as a form of entertainment. I think that if politicians really cared about the problem, not only would they tackle gun control, but they would also curb violent television and video games. Sadly, when they had the chance both democrats and republicans refused to do anything about violent content geared towards children because after all "the parents must choose for their children", but what if the parents have been desensitized to violence too? Then there is the fact that half of the violent military-style games out there have been funded by the Pentagon as a means to "train" America's future patriots and to entice young people to enlist. If the government itself is promoting violence, what good will gun control do?

Artful Dodger: I know it's people that pull the trigger, but when you allow a person to order 1000's of rounds at one time... ... .. get my drift? Little red light saying "why does one man need so much ammo?" flashing??

We had a full no knives or sharp items on the streets allowed. Automatic arrest for all juvi's and 99% chance of a custodial sentence... it worked. As weapons are not the norm of this country.... it is the norm that Americans are armed, so it's the norm that a criminal will arm themselves... catch 22 situation.

"It is scary that youtube has things like recipes for massive destruction of human life! But I'll bet the posters and the subscribers are being watched by the CIA."

Noooooo. When a guy is making rocket candy for his rockets as a fun hobby.. no harm. Thermite.. can be handy... plasticated it's a cheap metal cutter. I was shocked, but could see that many normal uses cannot be censored just because this world has nut jobs.

Mentos and coke.. that's a funny one!!

(V): There are many gun types that are legal and many other that are not. Military type assault (automatic) are not. The Government did some studies (back in the Clinton days) and found that the gun bans (instituted by Clinton and Janet Reno) had no noticeable effect on crime/murder/killings. Guns aren't the problem. It's the heart of man that's the problem.

It is scary that youtube has things like recipes for massive destruction of human life! But I'll bet the posters and the subscribers are being watched by the CIA. Likely the CIA has an insider working for Google. Or Google is a CIA front.

Artful Dodger: ... Thank God for that. Some nutty Americans armed with a cruise would be a very bad idea.

... but they could afford and make themselves unguided or simple guided rockets/missiles (guided as in a simple gyroscopic guidance). Youtube basically has all the info, including how to make solid fuel.

... I know this, I have seen this. Napalm, thermite recipes all on youtube!!

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-01/asa-shw012413.php

(V): most peeps couldn't afford one let alone know how to use it.

rod03801: ... a dictator.... I think you use that label too loosely. You don't see tanks on the street or jets bombing US citizens like in Syria.

No mass executions, American troops going around *&!%@? and pillaging like in the days of old against the American Indians.

... Yes, at that time the US government was an invader, just like we were in Australia.

"They are WELCOME to their silly laws"

Our silly laws include that gun owners are screened to stop probable maniacs going on a rampage... it's not perfect, but our gun crime death rate is very low. Imagine that...

It's nice that our schools don't need armed police or guards to protect the kids. Guns being more important than them it seems.

Artful Dodger: That's not true. The CIA has backed some really nasty bar stewards in the past, replaced democratically elected governments and all sorts of bad crap.

How did Al Qaeda get good at hijacking planes.... because they were trained to bring down soviet planes, the Taliban were trained to avoid Soviet troops, how to build IED's, etc.

I wonder how Iran would be today if the Oil companies hadn't got our governments put a puppet in place!

Artful Dodger: So it's ok for someone to own a cruise missile or two?

rod03801: Gun laws are basically meaningless. And gun free zones a joke. Like the mass murderer sees the "gun free zone" sign and says, "Crap! I can't bring my guns in there!"

Artful Dodger: So many don't seem to get that. I'm sick of all these talking points. The real intent was to be able to stand up to tyranny. If we keep having wannabe dictators, who have NO regard for our constitution, like Obama, we may NEED to be able to stand up against them.
And I'll never understand why they don't get that criminals DONT care which guns are against the law. The only people they are trying to punish are the law abiding people who have THE RIGHT to have what they want.
And some don't seem to get that we aren't under their reign still, thank goodness. They are WELCOME to their silly laws

(V): Well the CIA only favors terrorists that are less bad than the really bad terrorists. I think they hope the not-so-bad terrorists will kill the really-bad terrorists (and then the CIA will go after the no-so-bad terrorists). Or something like that.

(V): I don't think they envisioned any gun type. They envisioned the freedom to possess arms. It's the concept they stood for. The type of gun is immaterial. (also bats and nunchucks)

Artful Dodger: ....... the CIA!!??!! I though they'd be more discreet these days. ;P

Übergeek 바둑이: So has Sarah Palin.

Artful Dodger: Yep... I don't think 30 round shotgun magazines, attached to automatic shotguns were envisioned when the constitution was written. Pistols and bolt action rifles being more in line with the weaponry of that era.

Übergeek 바둑이: Fine, he probably did. But Al Gore was the darling of the Global Warming movement and in the end, he refused to sell his network to Glen Beck but was ok with an organization that favors the terrorists AND is hugely connected to oil money. So much for Al Gore's sincerity. It's his own Halliburton.

The Col: The political elite, on both sides, are worthless and need to be thrown out. Career politicians are bums and don't look out for the folks first.

(V): Those muskets are still around but they're not that effective unless you're a fast reloader and you're faithful at keeping your powder dry.

(V):

> "See Al Gore. He's made millions on his lies."

So did Dick Cheney!

Artful Dodger: It's a huge red flag when there is money to be made for energy policy changes"

And it's a huge red flag when the opposition stands to gain in the reverse.The pro and con to the discussion is cut right along party lines, which means both sides have supporters who blindly support each side with no clue of reality.So the tie breaker logically goes to informed sources, and they support the global warming/climate change theory by a landslide

Artful Dodger: We do and we don't. When I see people being able to build hydrogen gas extractors for their cars from 'bits and pieces', or batteries made from cow dung....

"See Al Gore. He's made millions on his lies."

So has Tony Blair, it seems big politicians make more out of power then in!!

As to gun control.... does that mean the US will go back to using muskets and other single fire weapons as used in 1791?

Übergeek 바둑이: Ha! I actually agree with you. But the models that scientists used to predict the "effects of global warming" haven't come true. My position is that we have no global warming and certainly it's not man made. We do have climate change but we can call that climate fluctuations or climate cycles and be just as accurate.

Pollution is another matter all together. We should be good stewards of the earth. But we shouldn't go over board and stop using fossil fuels altogether. We need to use fuels responsibly. If we had reliable green energy that was cost efficient (so far we don't) then we can move in that direction. Until then we need to use the technology we do have.

It's a huge red flag when there is money to be made for energy policy changes. Carbon credits, green dollar spending, and global warming research, not to mention the green energy investments, all stand to make a bundle if global warming policies move forward. See Al Gore. He's made millions on his lies. And in the end, he sold out to big oil anyway.

There is nothing wrong with responsible use of coal, oil, or gas. And there is no green energy technology that can supply a huge community with all their energy needs. Until there is, we have to continue to use what is available (and there is lots of it).

Artful Dodger:

Of course, you realize that global warming is not about daily or seasonal weather events, but rather about the long-term averages of atmospheric temperatures. This winter is actually not that cold, at least not here where the temperature is almost 20 degrees higher than usual. That is not what global warming is about. It is about an increase of almost 2 degrees in average atmospheric temperatures over the last 100 years and the fact that those increases in temperature coincide with the burning of fossil fuels on a massive scale. Are fossil fuels to blame for global warming? Only if one sees a correlation between burning of fossil fuels and the increase in atmospheric long-term averages since the start of the industrial revolution. Just because winter is cold it does not mean that all that carbon dioxide has no effect on the atmosphere. The question is not whether this winter is cold or not, but rather whether average winter temperatures have increased in the last 200 years.

Of course, if global warming does not exist, then it is ok to keep burning fossil fuels and polluting the atmosphere. After all, car and factory exhaust fumes are really harmless!

Are you freezing? Join the crowd. Arctic air is sweeping across Canada. Snow and ice are wreaking havoc on Britain. Russians are dying from the cold. And Germans are sneaking into forests to cut down trees because their fuel bills are so high.

Hey! Whatever happened to global warming?

That’s a naive question, of course. Everybody knows there’s little or no connection between daily weather events and climate change (except when there’s a heat wave, a hurricane or some other natural disaster, in which case global warming is invariably to blame). Experts will tell you that our bitter winter weather proves nothing about climate change – that the world is still warming up at an alarming rate.

Well, maybe not so alarming. Global temperatures have now held steady for 16 years. They levelled off around 1997........

read more: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/whatever-happened-to-global-warming/article7725145/

rod03801: Intentions... Well, that says it all.

As I said..... show.