Gun Control, who's for it?

If someone points a gun at me I am not waiting to find out if he is an "honorable" robber or a robber/murderer. After you find out he was the latter, it is a little late. The owner will probably experience some distress but not likely for life.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Patch;

I took that Shattuck shot gun to the police to-day. Shan't do that again took almost 45 min. in the staionhouse answering questions and signing forms.
Next time if it happens I'll render the weapon useless and throw it in the Garbage.



Camac.


PS. I found a number 623 stamped in the breech.

Patch;

I took that Shattuck shot gun to the police to-day. Shan't do that again took almost 45 min. in the staionhouse answering questions and signing forms.
Next time if it happens I'll render the weapon useless and throw it in the Garbage.



Camac.


PS. I found a number 623 stamped in the breech.

It is likely that it was manufactured in the late 1800's if that was the SN#. It is of limited interest to collectors. If the barrel was Damascus it's value was as a display item. We have a target club South of where I live that has a Skeet Shoot with the old Damascus barreled shot guns. They can only be fired with black powder loads. They will blow up if modern smokeless powder is used. They dip the barrels in water to cool them every few shots to keep the solder from melting out of the wire wrap. Most have pinholes in the barrels and when they are fired, the smoke comes out of the side of the barrel in little "jets." It is interesting to watch. I have an old English double that needs hammers. Some day I will have a pair made. I couldn't deal with your laws though I guess it is what you are used to.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Gun control, if I'm for it or not?

My husband's been working for the police for some years now even though he is not a policeman himself we have many friends that are. I am not very fond of automatic weapons in the first place but the way society is becoming especially streets gangs that are just attacking innocents for the fun of it.
Well, I kind of revisited my opinion and I am really considering sometimes to get some training and own one myself. I don't know maybe I'm just a paranoid fool.

LOA

I am a firm believer in training.

One fact that has never changed is, as the economy slows down, crime increases. I have no intent to ever shoot anyone over food so long as they are willing to share what I have. However if the intent is to kill me , my family, my friends or anyone for that matter or do us serious bodily harm I will do whatever I have to to "stop the attack." I teach a personal defense/safety class from time to time. I used to charge for it but the class is now free if a half dozen or more are interested and I have time. I stress handgun/shotgun training but also the little things one does not think of. I live in a community of 26,000 and there are 8,000 who are or have been on community control or in jail. If one knew the number of persons that are convicted felons living in their community they would be shocked.

We can only hope the police will catch the person who commits a crime against us. There is NO possibility that the police will be present to prevent the crime. We will have to survive that on our own.

For anyone but particularly for the women, an old fashioned hat pin is hard to beat! Hide it as a hair decoration or in a seam/hem in clothing. I do not recommend it against a gun or knife but with no other alternative, it is better than nothing. Grab your hat pin (a 3 to 4 inch long heavy needle with a decorative Head.) and stick it in the most painful place you can think of. If the attacker is male and you can "pin" his private parts to his thigh, you will have plenty of time to get away. In the adams apple will cause prolonged vomiting. At home a plastic squeeze bottle full of ammonia shot in the face of an attacker is impressive too. Just make sure the cap will pop off when you squeeze it. If you can hit the eyes, nose and mouth, you have a sick individual on your hands. I try to keep several levels of response available so I can match the response with the threat. I do not recommend that with women as if they are attacked by a man, at least in America, it is generally presumed that the difference in upper body strength between the two places the woman in danger of serious bodily harm.

In conclusion, NO criminal's life is worth that of an honest law abiding citizen! Also, I recommend that one get as near the same firearms training that the police get as possible.

Sorry this was so long!

Slàinte,    

Patch    

You are right. I do suggest that you read up on Guns first and talk to those, in your case the Policemen you know, who have the knowledge all ready. You're in Canada I see. So it won't be easy obtaining a gun. My motto is never shoot to kill or mame. Shoot only to stop the attack. I have a friend from Toronto down here if Florida and he said last year when he was back home, crime had only gotten worse. Even with draconian gun control.

You are right. I do suggest that you read up on Guns first and talk to those, in your case the Policemen you know, who have the knowledge all ready. You're in Canada I see. So it won't be easy obtaining a gun. My motto is never shoot to kill or mame. Shoot only to stop the attack. I have a friend from Toronto down here if Florida and he said last year when he was back home, crime had only gotten worse. Even with draconian gun control.

NovaScotian;

By American standards Canadian Gun Laws might seem Draconian but as Canada has never had a "Gun Culture" to the majority of us they are quiet reasonable. Most of the guns used in crime in Toronto are smuggled in from the U.S. Also although it is Politicall Incorrect to state so most of the violence is perpitrated by Black, Latino, and Asian gangs. These young people are slaughtering each other on the streets over Drugs and Turf.


Camac.

Gun Control laws only have an effect on law abiding citizens, not criminals!

Gun Control laws are a method used by government to deprive law abiding citizens of some or all forms of firearms, thus rendering any theory that you have a basic right to self defence (let alone the power to affect government control or abuses when the socially acceptable means fail) a moot point. If it hadn't been for an armed populace willing to enforce their rights with armed rebellion the American "Colonies" would probably be part of the British Commonwealth as I write this (In case you hadn't noticed we just celebrated a major event during that little conflagration a few days ago).

MacEoghainn;

It is a difference in culture. We in Canada had a Militia and it was used to help repel the American Invasion in 1812, and to supress three rebelions. It was mainly composed of law abiding Loyalist and over the years kind of faded away as it was no longer needed. We have a Militia to-day but that is Military and corresponds to the American Reserves or National Guard. Its all in the culture my friend. Canada didn't have a Wild West and the North West Mounted Police (RCMP) kept the peace . The Law was in place before the settlers arrived.


Camac.

You are right. I do suggest that you read up on Guns first and talk to those, in your case the Policemen you know, who have the knowledge all ready. You're in Canada I see. So it won't be easy obtaining a gun. My motto is never shoot to kill or mame. Shoot only to stop the attack. I have a friend from Toronto down here if Florida and he said last year when he was back home, crime had only gotten worse. Even with draconian gun control.

NovaScotian;

By American standards Canadian Gun Laws might seem Draconian but as Canada has never had a "Gun Culture" to the majority of us they are quiet reasonable. Most of the guns used in crime in Toronto are smuggled in from the U.S. Also although it is Politicall Incorrect to state so most of the violence is perpitrated by Black, Latino, and Asian gangs. These young people are slaughtering each other on the streets over Drugs and Turf.


Camac.

You mention the "gangs." What will these people do if they get hungry and or cold? Say they no longer have the funds to maintain their lifestyle. Will they do like the rest of us and cut expenses? I doubt it and therein lies the problem!

Slàinte,   

 Patch    

MacEoghainn;

It is a difference in culture. We in Canada had a Militia and it was used to help repel the American Invasion in 1812, and to supress three rebelions. It was mainly composed of law abiding Loyalist and over the years kind of faded away as it was no longer needed. We have a Militia to-day but that is Military and corresponds to the American Reserves or National Guard. Its all in the culture my friend. Canada didn't have a Wild West and the North West Mounted Police (RCMP) kept the peace . The Law was in place before the settlers arrived.


Camac.

I must disagree my friend.

The methodology for becoming disarmed, whether voluntary or compelled, is immaterial. An armed person is a citizen; an unarmed person is a servant or slave. It has been that way since the beginning of mankind and will still be that way at the end.

In any form of government people will find themselves with the possibility of a despotic government appearing at any moment. Democracies are not exempt from this. Just ask any German, Italian, or Japanese citizen who was alive in the 30s. It only took one election and they had a Hitler, Mussolini, or Tojo running their respective countries. The Standing Armies of those countries (whether active or reserve) supported those governments no matter what they did.

It is the free armed citizen (example: the Massachusetts Miniteman at Concord and Lexington) who stands for freedom and against tyranny!

MacEoghainn;

It is a difference in culture. We in Canada had a Militia and it was used to help repel the American Invasion in 1812, and to supress three rebelions. It was mainly composed of law abiding Loyalist and over the years kind of faded away as it was no longer needed. We have a Militia to-day but that is Military and corresponds to the American Reserves or National Guard. Its all in the culture my friend. Canada didn't have a Wild West and the North West Mounted Police (RCMP) kept the peace . The Law was in place before the settlers arrived.


Camac.

I must disagree my friend.

The methodology for becoming disarmed, whether voluntary or compelled, is immaterial. An armed person is a citizen; an unarmed person is a servant or slave. It has been that way since the beginning of mankind and will still be that way at the end.

In any form of government people will find themselves with the possibility of a despotic government appearing at any moment. Democracies are not exempt from this. Just ask any German, Italian, or Japanese citizen who was alive in the 30s. It only took one election and they had a Hitler, Mussolini, or Tojo running their respective countries. The Standing Armies of those countries (whether active or reserve) supported those governments no matter what they did.

It is the free armed citizen (example: the Massachusetts Miniteman at Concord and Lexington) who stands for freedom and against tyranny!

That was the belief of our forefathers in drafting the second amendment.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Patch;

Your President is Commander in Chief of your armed forces, therefore the Army is subordinate to the government. In Canada and most Commonwealth members the Queen or her representative is Commander in Chief. Our Armed Forces swear loyalty to her and her descendants. theoretically speaking the Prime Minister and the government cannot order the military into action without the Queens' or Govenor Generals' consent. In practice it does not work this way as the Government controls the purse strings also if the G.G. refused he or she is replaced. In the 60s' and 70s' when we had the FLQ crisis in Quebec Trudeau ordered the armed forces into the province but he had to get consent from the G.G. even though the government had envoked the War Measures Act |(Martial Law). As I said it is all in the cultural outlook of the society. Which system is better will be opened for debate long after most of us are mere memories.


Camac.

Camac.
This is all very true and the reason why the USA is what it is. The Continantals didn't want England to mandate anything. This is just one small part of the big picture. It's strange that in a lot of the northern states, where gun laws are very lax, crime isn't nearly as bad as say New York, Miami, DC, etc. example. Alaska and Vermont, you don't even need a permit to carry a canceled weapon. The crime rate in those states are very low. You are right. These debates will go on and on till probably just a memory if anyone wants to remember me. The only threat to the US constitutional right to keep and bare arms is if there's ever becomes a North American Union but that's another subject that is cotraversial.

Camac.
This is all very true and the reason why the USA is what it is. The Continantals didn't want England to mandate anything. This is just one small part of the big picture. It's strange that in a lot of the northern states, where gun laws are very lax, crime isn't nearly as bad as say New York, Miami, DC, etc. example. Alaska and Vermont, you don't even need a permit to carry a canceled weapon. The crime rate in those states are very low. You are right. These debates will go on and on till probably just a memory if anyone wants to remember me. The only threat to the US constitutional right to keep and bare arms is if there's ever becomes a North American Union but that's another subject that is cotraversial.

NovaScotian;

I have wondered about what would happen if there was to be a North American Union. The Western Provinces, which are more inclined toward conservatism would probably be more inclined to accept American type gunlaws. The Central and Eastern Provinces being more populated and more Liberal would definitely reject them. It would be an interesting debate.

Camac.