Joe Blow likes to deer hunt, threatens wife

[Stellar]

May I ask how it is enforced?

By the way, I don't know how you can say everyone locks them up. That's like saying no one speeds or drives drunk. Simply because something is a law doesn't mean the law won't be broken.

When I said everyone, I meant vast majority. I have no way to account for all 100% of gun owners of course.

The way it works here is through two different methods as I see it. First of all, the vast majority of gun owners in Canada are law abiding citizens and have no interest in breaking the law over a firearms cabinet. This right here means the vast majority of guns can not be easily "swiped" by a burgler.

The next method is through the gun registration. All restricted weapons are registered and tracked. If someone breaks into your home and steals your gun, you have to report it. If you do not and they track your gun to a crime, you are in a world of hurt. If you do report it stolen, they investigate to ensure you were not deemed to have been storing them negligably. If you are found to have not stored them as per the law, you are once again in a world of hurt. Basically, no one wants to risk the holy hell that would rain down on them if their weapon was stolen due to improper storage.

[Michelle]

Thank you. I'm not sure what a "world of hurt" is, but I'll take your word for it.

[Thanato]

Thanatos: you do not have to be part of a gun club to get a pistol.

Just checked on the firearms website and you can have one for Target Shooting, Collecting, or Work (Security job). You need to provide proof that you compete or shoot at an CFO Approved range for the Target Shooting.

~Thanato

[Stellar]

Just checked on the firearms website and you can have one for Target Shooting, Collecting, or Work (Security job). You need to provide proof that you compete or shoot at an CFO Approved range for the Target Shooting.

~Thanato

I did Not have to to get my pistol.

[rashore]

Um, if the only thing keeping a man from killing his wife is killing animals and leaving their carcasses to rot, perhaps he really is mentally unstable enough to warrant not allowing him firearms. If nothing else, the tendency to sport kill and leave to rot animal carcasses is pretty frigging disturbing. What if his habit was strangling cats or axing dogs instead of shooting deer? And to kill enough animals to the point where your spouse is getting on your case to clean up all the corpses? Blech.

[Stellar]

Just checked on the firearms website and you can have one for Target Shooting, Collecting, or Work (Security job). You need to provide proof that you compete or shoot at an CFO Approved range for the Target Shooting.

~Thanato

Ahh, I reviewed the laws an I understand what you mean. If you tell them you're going to be target shooting, you need to be part of a range. What I told them fell under the occupation category, hence me not needing to be part of a range when I purchased the firearms.

[Raptor Witness]

In my mind as a Soldier, Joe Blow is a threat to himself (Drinking while Hunting has been the cause of many gun related deaths and injury) as well as he is a Violent man because he likes to beat his wife. What is to stop him in the heat of the moment to escalate a beating to an execution? It has happened before and it will happen again. The situation which yo propose ends in the correct method, the man should not be allowed to own a firearm and should be given further psychiatric help.

To say that the man poses no threat to himself or his wife is ludicrous. As he is already a threat to his wife. People like the one in the example should not be allowed to use firearms let alone own them.

~Thanato

If Joe Blow were already a convicted a felon, then I agree, but if he seeks the help of a mental health professional before he is convicted of a serious crime, I don't think he should risk losing his guns as a result. The simple reason is, he won't get help, and it will only make matters worse. My example assumes Joe Blow hasn't been convicted of a felony yet. The wife is hoping he'll change, but that's not the argument I'm trying to make, rather the limitations created by a mental health police force with the authority to confiscate guns based upon individual opinions.

How many police officers' won't get help? Will they be treated differently? Now you're getting into equal protection and a big can of worms.

I'm looking for creative answers, not the same old reasoning. It's failing, after all, and will continue to fail. We need real solutions, not cosmetic changes, and if we fail to act quickly, I predict that these killers will multiply and eventually begin getting away with their crimes. It's clearly the next level of the game, and someone is bound to see this.

The Beltway sniper attacks were a good example, even though they eventually got caught. There are smarter guys out there, who don't want to die or get caught.

All this crazy guy in Conneticut had to do was attack a school bus on a rural road. He could have lived to play again.

Edited January 19, 2013 by Raptor Witness

[ZaraKitty]

Flawless logic.

[Stellar]

If Joe Blow were already a convicted a felon, then I agree, but if he seeks the help of a mental health professional before he is convicted of a serious crime, I don't think he should risk losing his guns as a result. The simple reason is, he won't get help, and it will only make matters worse. My example assumes Joe Blow hasn't been convicted of a felony yet. The wife is hoping he'll change, but that's not the argument I'm trying to make, rather the limitations created by a mental health police force with the authority to confiscate guns based upon individual opinions.

How many police officers' won't get help? Will they be treated differently? Now you're getting into equal protection and a big can of worms.

I'm looking for creative answers, not the same old reasoning. It's failing, after all, and will continue to fail. We need real solutions, not cosmetic changes, and if we fail to act quickly, I predict that these killers will multiply and eventually begin getting away with their crimes. It's clearly the next level of the game, and someone is bound to see this.

The Beltway sniper attacks were a good example, even though they eventually got caught. There are smarter guys out there, who don't want to die or get caught.

All this crazy guy in Conneticut had to do was attack a school bus on a rural road. He could have lived to play again.

Umm, aren't wife beating and threatening to kill someone considered crimes?

[lone wolf2]

It isn't the gun that makes a person a killer. Take away the guns and people will use bows and knives.

Your not going to be able to take the guns away from the criminals. Just the law abiding citizens.

Then murder rates will rise.

[glorybebe]

No Go ahead and say your peace,I was talking about.....never mind it seem I used the wrong words again,Hmmmmm,but you know what,I was just wondering ,Does the USA guns effect your country? if so How,no Really Id like to kow,Maybe it does,maybe I was not looking at the picture right,Are my guns in anyway making you nevous or do they not matter to youand when I say you I mean other country's,I Do know that Mexico is effected from illegal guns and that the cartels there will do anything to get them,I think I see the point here,My bad,your right.Let me here what you think on this matter,If America bans all guns would it affect the other country's or have we been "WIMPED" by them and if so How. Oh And Im not going anywhere and nethier should you,Forgive my stupid way of thinking.

Being as we are neigbours, yes, US guns do affect our country. Quite a few years back, there was a jail break and two escapees made their way-ARMED-to the border. They told the Canadian border guards, who are unarmed, by the way, that they were dead. One man had the gun barrell held to his head and later told me that he had never been that scared before. He was off for PTSD. I moved away and was not sure if he ever went back to work. The money and time that the Candian government spent trying to track these guys down was enormous, but that is a unimportant compared to the threat of danger every citizen of that town felt until they were both caught. Do you honestly think that what affects the US doesn't spill past it's borders? This whole debate scares me, especially when US citizens are so jumped up about their right to 'bear arms' that they think that mentally ill people have a right to have them, too, because no one is going to take their freedom away. Friggin' freaky IMO.

[acidhead]

Being as we are neigbours, yes, US guns do affect our country. Quite a few years back, there was a jail break and two escapees made their way-ARMED-to the border. They told the Canadian border guards, who are unarmed, by the way, that they were dead. One man had the gun barrell held to his head and later told me that he had never been that scared before. He was off for PTSD. I moved away and was not sure if he ever went back to work. The money and time that the Candian government spent trying to track these guys down was enormous, but that is a unimportant compared to the threat of danger every citizen of that town felt until they were both caught. Do you honestly think that what affects the US doesn't spill past it's borders? This whole debate scares me, especially when US citizens are so jumped up about their right to 'bear arms' that they think that mentally ill people have a right to have them, too, because no one is going to take their freedom away. Friggin' freaky IMO.

... that came from left field.

[glorybebe]

... that came from left field.

No, it didn't:

As soon as a government can tell the people who can and who can't get a gun...

It has been stated many times in different threads that the government cannot tell the US citizens who can and cannot own guns. I thought that was a huge wide open blanket that covered a whole range of problems. Look into the thread about the Sandy Hook shooting, that was an eye opening. Statements and attitudes like that are what the non-Us-citizens are shocked about and why we do not always agree with a lot of postings.

[Thanato]

It isn't the gun that makes a person a killer. Take away the guns and people will use bows and knives.

Your not going to be able to take the guns away from the criminals. Just the law abiding citizens.

Then murder rates will rise.

The Gun doesn't make a person a killer, but it does help in terms of 'courage'. Knives and blunt force objects are very personal. The gun removes, to some degree the personal aspect of killing. All that person does is pull the triger they can do it from a distance and sometimes they dont even need to be seen. With a knife you have to get up close and personal. Do you know why guns replaced bows on the field? It didn't take much time at all to train someone fairly accuratly with a gun, but months to years with a bow.

This topic isnt about taking guns out of law abiding citizens. This topic is about taking guns out of the hands of potentialy dangerous and mentally unfit people's hands.

~Thanato

[aztek]

The Gun doesn't make a person a killer, but it does help in terms of 'courage'.

it helps , when there is an intent. guns do not have intents, ppl do.

[Capt Amerika]

Am i the only one who finds it odd that the ONLY people NOT in the news causing death to others at the end of a barrel are the rednecks and country hicks everyone likes to make fun of.

[Capt Amerika]

Being as we are neigbours, yes, US guns do affect our country. Quite a few years back, there was a jail break and two escapees made their way-ARMED-to the border. They told the Canadian border guards, who are unarmed, by the way, that they were dead. One man had the gun barrell held to his head and later told me that he had never been that scared before. He was off for PTSD. I moved away and was not sure if he ever went back to work. The money and time that the Candian government spent trying to track these guys down was enormous, but that is a unimportant compared to the threat of danger every citizen of that town felt until they were both caught. Do you honestly think that what affects the US doesn't spill past it's borders? This whole debate scares me, especially when US citizens are so jumped up about their right to 'bear arms' that they think that mentally ill people have a right to have them, too, because no one is going to take their freedom away. Friggin' freaky IMO.

Arm your border guards.

DUH, Thats just dumb to assume that everyone crossing the border is doing so in good faith.

That not good enough for you?

Build a wall.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Capt Amerika

[glorybebe]

Arm your border guards.

DUH, Thats just dumb to assume that everyone crossing the border is doing so in good faith.

That not good enough for you?

Build a wall.

Did I say everyone? No, I didn't. Getting all snippy because you don't take the time to actually read the post is really rude. Get off your high horse and actually pay attention to another view. It may give you an insight to another view even if you don't agree with it.