A lot of people who are proponents of defending the right to firearms ownership have been hesitant to get a lifetime membership with the NRA due to the high cost ($1000.00). I've been an NRA member for a few years now, and wanted to spring for a full life membership, but my finances have not allowed me to do this. There is a Easy-Pay-Life (EPL) installment plan, where you can pay by credit card over a default period of 10 years ($25.00 per quarter, per year), but that with that plan, that will take me well into my late 40s. I recently did sign up for EPL, but since then, I have found a couple of ways to get a life membership much more cheaply.
The first depends on someone else - once in a while, the NRA will offer to its existing life members the opportunity to sign up a family or friend (both of these are regarded loosely by the membership office, so essentially anyone can sign you up). This is THE best promotion out there, as life membership is reduced down to only $300.00 (but this depends on an existing NRA life member sponsoring you).
The other method, which I have used, is to sign up for EPL, and then call them a few weeks later and tell them that you'd like to take advantage of the offer to convert the EPL to a lifetime membership. This will require a one-time payment of $500.00 U.S. (which is still much better than having to cough up $1000, either one-time or via installment plan). Any EPL payments will be credited against the one-time fee of $500.00. For me, I got a statue with my name on a nameplate, as thanks for the life membership, as well as my usual subscription to American Rifleman (I really liked the America's First Freedom magazine, but it would cost extra and incur some additional postage charges since I am in Canada).
I should mention that this $500.00 offer is contingent on switching from existing EPL. For 1, 3, 5 year single memberships, there is no way (that I know of) to get the $500.00 life membership. Just get your membership switched to EPL and then in a few weeks, call them and get it switched to lifetime via the one-time payment. If you don't have the cash handy, you can always do EPL for however long you want and then call them and pay the difference between what you have paid and the $500.00.
$500.00 is still a lot of money, but much better than $1000.00. I have no idea if this is a limited offer or not, but if you ever wanted to spring for an NRA Life Membership, hopefully this will save you some money.
Showing posts with label firearms. Show all posts
Showing posts with label firearms. Show all posts
Friday, January 8, 2010
Sunday, July 5, 2009
The Gun Is the Great Equalizer
I am a bit of an anomaly when it comes to my family. It is not a secret, if you have read any part of this blog long enough, that I am a staunch proponent of firearms ownership. My wife, while passably tolerating my gun hobby, leans more towards the very common, yet erronenous notion that "guns are bad". Of course, if you get your information from the mass media, that's the impression you'll get, though you'll have a tough time defending it.
However, out of respect for my wife, I choose to keep my gun interests to myself. My kids, both under 7, don't know I don't own any guns. Of course, if they ever ask me, I won't lie about it, but I won't go out of my way to volunteer this information either (by the way, that's generally a good mindset to have, since you don't want to advertise that you have guns in your house anyway, just in case the wrong people get a hold of this information).
Over the past weekend, our family went camping with some Jewish friends of ours, who, while they are very nice and thoughtful people, are thoroughly indoctrinated in anything that smacks of today's liberal and left-wing mindset. They don't spank their kinds and frown when I say that both my kids get spanked. This weekend was evidence of what happens when you have a lassez-faire, "let the kids run your life" type of parenting style. But anyway, one interesting interchange between my son and one of our friends was when she was taking a photo of my son with her kids and my son decided to use both hands to make guns and point it to the side - you know the posture, the "here's lookin' at you kid" type of gesture. She said, "oh, you shouldn't be doing that - guns are not nice." I quickly remarked to my son, though I was indirectly talking with her, "guns can be used for good or bad", and I knew she shot me a look, but I wasn't really paying attention to her response.
It seems very typical that those who oppose gun ownership are the ones who probably can benefit from it the most. Whether you are a woman, a visible minority, a senior citizen, or someone who is physically in stature, guns are, for all intents and purposes, the great equalizer. I mean, think about it - if you are a woman and are attacked, chances are that your aggressor will be physically stronger than you (as a general rule, based on on the physical attributes of men and woman on a whole). If you are a visible minority, especially if you are black, you would benefit greatly from a firearm for self-defence, since blacks tend to be victims of crimes. It's no different if you're a smaller person like me. In whatever case, a gun evens the odds between potential victim and aggressor. The fact of the matter is, there will always be bigger, badder people out there. There is no shame in utilizing extra tools at your disposal in our own self-defence.
I am a bit surprised at our friend's response. Being Jewish, you would think she would have experienced racism or ethnic jokes at one point in her life or another (but then again, she is from a fairly multicultural country - a real multicultural country, so she may have been fortunate in avoiding all the racial tension those other of us who are minorities would have had to live through. Israel as a country, perhaps only second to Switzerland, has a very high per capita of gun ownership. Yet their crime rates in the cities are infinitely smaller than their North American counterparts. If you look in Canada and the U.S., are the areas where there tends to be more crime tend to be higher and denser-populated metropolitan cities like Toronto, New York, L.A., Chicago, etc. All these areas are high gun-control areas, yet crime remains rampant. Those who live in the poorest of these areas could greatly benefit from owning a firearm as these people are the most likely to have a crime committed on them.
However, out of respect for my wife, I choose to keep my gun interests to myself. My kids, both under 7, don't know I don't own any guns. Of course, if they ever ask me, I won't lie about it, but I won't go out of my way to volunteer this information either (by the way, that's generally a good mindset to have, since you don't want to advertise that you have guns in your house anyway, just in case the wrong people get a hold of this information).
Over the past weekend, our family went camping with some Jewish friends of ours, who, while they are very nice and thoughtful people, are thoroughly indoctrinated in anything that smacks of today's liberal and left-wing mindset. They don't spank their kinds and frown when I say that both my kids get spanked. This weekend was evidence of what happens when you have a lassez-faire, "let the kids run your life" type of parenting style. But anyway, one interesting interchange between my son and one of our friends was when she was taking a photo of my son with her kids and my son decided to use both hands to make guns and point it to the side - you know the posture, the "here's lookin' at you kid" type of gesture. She said, "oh, you shouldn't be doing that - guns are not nice." I quickly remarked to my son, though I was indirectly talking with her, "guns can be used for good or bad", and I knew she shot me a look, but I wasn't really paying attention to her response.
It seems very typical that those who oppose gun ownership are the ones who probably can benefit from it the most. Whether you are a woman, a visible minority, a senior citizen, or someone who is physically in stature, guns are, for all intents and purposes, the great equalizer. I mean, think about it - if you are a woman and are attacked, chances are that your aggressor will be physically stronger than you (as a general rule, based on on the physical attributes of men and woman on a whole). If you are a visible minority, especially if you are black, you would benefit greatly from a firearm for self-defence, since blacks tend to be victims of crimes. It's no different if you're a smaller person like me. In whatever case, a gun evens the odds between potential victim and aggressor. The fact of the matter is, there will always be bigger, badder people out there. There is no shame in utilizing extra tools at your disposal in our own self-defence.
I am a bit surprised at our friend's response. Being Jewish, you would think she would have experienced racism or ethnic jokes at one point in her life or another (but then again, she is from a fairly multicultural country - a real multicultural country, so she may have been fortunate in avoiding all the racial tension those other of us who are minorities would have had to live through. Israel as a country, perhaps only second to Switzerland, has a very high per capita of gun ownership. Yet their crime rates in the cities are infinitely smaller than their North American counterparts. If you look in Canada and the U.S., are the areas where there tends to be more crime tend to be higher and denser-populated metropolitan cities like Toronto, New York, L.A., Chicago, etc. All these areas are high gun-control areas, yet crime remains rampant. Those who live in the poorest of these areas could greatly benefit from owning a firearm as these people are the most likely to have a crime committed on them.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Media Bias Against Guns By The Toronto Star and CBC Marketplace
Over the years, I have developed a very dejected view towards the media's handling of anything firearms-related. A good day it would be if you can find a neutral reporting of guns. But alas, we live in a fairly socialistic country and as such, it should come as no surprise to see continued negative spin and even outright lies when it comes to reporting about guns. Recently, I saw two instances of this which gave me grave stomach upset.
First, the good ol' CBC, who, unfortunately, happened to give us two of our recent Governor-Generals, Michaelle Jean (current) and Andrienne Clarkson. No, I dislike them not because they are women, but because they are left-wing, tree-hugging nutjobs (and in Jean's case, she is a known sympathizer of Quebec separatism). Anyway, CBC, the station that tries to make itself "culturally relevant" by bringing you the not-very-funny and ridiculous-concepted Little Mosque on the Prairie, has shown again and again, its absolute willingness to all-out lie to advance its liberal agenda.
The latest attempt can be seen here in this CBC Marketplace report:
CBC Market Place "Report" on Replica Guns
The subject is replica guns.
Now, why does this matter to me? Well, due to this report, my local gunshop now no longer stocks air pistols (BB and pellet). Watch the report first and then keep reading here.
There are several issues with this documentary. One is that the CBC marketplace reporter and crew take several liberties to deliberately make guns look like they're some sort of evil, even though common sense will tell you a gun is just an inanimate piece of metal, an object. These are not in any chronological order, but my first and biggest issue is with the reporter. She has no clue that there are different classes of airguns. They just said that there are BB guns and airsoft guns. Obviously this is not true. So, based on what I know, I'll give you the facts.
Airguns are propelled in one of four ways: 1) by pumping air into the gun, compressing it. When the trigger is pulled, that air is released, pushing the projectile with it. 2) by compressing a spring, usually by breaking the barrel (most often on air rifles). When the trigger is pressed, the spring decompresses, pushing air out and the projectile with it. 3) CO2 gas cartridges, which is CO2 gas in a canister, either 12g or 88g. A pull of a trigger releases measured amounts of the gas which push the projectile out of the gun. 4) PCP, which I believe stands for pre-charged pneumatic (if it's different, contact me - it's late and I'm too lazy right now to look it up) which is pre-filled either with an airtank or manually pumping something like a bicycle pump to fill up the air tank. It's beyond the scope of this blog entry to discuss the pros and cons, but that's a general rule of the power plant options for airguns.
Airguns are broken down into many categories:
I don't consider airsoft a true airgun categorty, but airsoft shoots very light plastic projectiles and its velocity (how fast the projectile goes when leaving the barrel) is around 200 - 350FPS (feet per second). This is what people use for airsoft wars and airsoft guns are often marked by that ugly and tacky orange tip at the end of the gun. I am not into airsoft at all as you can probably tell by now.
BB guns shoot a small steel ball (BB) - they are ALWAYS under 500FPS. Their accuracy is not good because of the fact that they get shot out of smooth barrels. Mostly for plinking and backyard fun.
Pellet guns are lead pellets which have a front end and a skirted end, the front end can be any number of shapes including flat (wadcutter), round, pointed, and hollowpoint. Depending on the power of the gun, the use of the pellet can be anywhere from casual target shooting and plinking to competition target shooting to hunting. The CBC Marketplace report did not make this differentiation and also failed to mention that many pellet guns (a lot of rifles) require a firearms licence, as they shoot over 500FPS AND generate more than 4.2FPE (foot points energy).
By not making these distinctions, one who knows nothing about airguns can think of airsoft in the same vein as a pellet gun in the same vein as a BB gun. They are all different.
In the report they got this teenage guy to go into the store to buy a airgun (probably airsoft). He walks out with it and brandishes it in public. Law-abiding gun owners, whether firearms grade or not, do not do this. The CBC either does not realize, or does not care, that what that kid did is against the law. Yet the impression they want to leave is that anyone can go in and buy this and start shooting at people.
Also, that part about finding airsoft plastic BBs all over the street. Yeah, that was as much of a plant as I have ever seen. So all the sudden they are talking, look down and lo and behold, there are airsoft BBs strewn all over the street. Yeah right. Why would CBC lie about this? The same reason as another instance you saw and are about to read my assessment.
That lady reporter blatantly lied when she went to shoot that airsoft gun in Port Perry. First, it was an airsoft gun - I can tell by the report / sound of the gun not to mention by looking at it. Even if you argue it was a BB or pellet gun, what she did with it is impossible. Upon shooting it, she gave a recoil with her hands and said "Geez Louise!". Like, what-the-hell-ever, lady. Neither BB or pellet or airsoft guns recoil - they don't make air pistols shooting over 500FPS so whatever she shot can not and did not recoil. The only gun that I have felt recoil that was an airgun was a Gamo Hunter Extreme, which shoots...1400FPS. That is a firearms grade airgun, and even then, the recoil was so, so mild (it's really just the spring decompressing). Air pistols don't recoil, sorry.
Now, where this affects me. My favourite outdoors store, Le Baron - their gunshop immediately pulled all of their air pistols from their shelves because the CBC showed several pages of their catalog selling pages and pages of air pistols. What they neglected to show is that it is explictly stated that permits are required for certain models of airguns. Also, LeBaron's policy, not shown in CBC Marketplace is to visually inspect and record ID information for all airgun and ammo purchases (even if it is not firearms grade). I have been in the gunshop and seen them turn down people due to lack of ID. So that 14-year-old kid in the Marketplace story who went into some shady store in Vancouver to get an airsoft gun, he wouldn't have had that easy of a time at LeBaron.
Now, I'll focus on the Toronto Star. They recently had a series of reports about guns in Toronto (guess it was to capitalize on some of the hoopla surrounding last week's Toronto's Sportsmen Show, which also is a topic in and of itself for another time and another day). I'm not sure what their goal was, but if you look at the first article, it had this gunshop owner pointed out a side-by-side (SXS) shotgun in the direction of the camera. The average person who is not conversant with guns may look at that and not think good things. I think that was the star's point. But if you look carefully, you'll see that the gunshop owner has the action broken (hinge) and is obviously checking the gun - he's not deliberately pointing it at the cameraman. The gun is totally safe. Second, he has a plethora of other guns all under glass shelving behind him - I hope that that is a detail that is not lost on people - law abiding gun owners go above and beyond to ensure that their guns are locked up to meet and exceed legal standards.
I wonder about the Star's true intentions in publishing a map of which area / jurisdiction owns the most guns in the Toronto area, including exact numbers of guns owned, whether the gun owners are hunters or merely target shooters and whether the per capita ownership of guns in that area has been increasing or decreasing over time (trending). I fail to see what point of providing this information is, other than to give potential criminals a shopping list of where to find the most guns. I won't discuss the exact specifics, but I do want to make a very clear point, and I don't care how it sounds:
The two highest places with the highest gun ownership rates are heavily populated with people of European descent. I would bet my bottom dollar that these areas are very, very low crime areas (and this would be in line with John Lott's theory in More Guns, Less Crime).
Conversely, the two areas with the smallest percentage of legal gun ownership are...(drumroll) the Jane and Finch corridor area, and Rexdale, both heavily Black-populated areas and high crime areas. This again is consistent with U.S. statistics of big cities who have large urban African-American populations, greater crime, and the lowest rates of gun ownerships. If any demographic needs to have more law-abiding gun owners, it is in these areas. This also proves once again that gun control does not work - anywhere you look, places that have more guns by law abiding citizens have less crime and places where guns are either frowned upon or banned outright, crime is very high (and to no one's surprise, gun crime, with use of illegally obtained guns).
Of course, the Toronto Star would never produce any type of crime statistics based on race or culture. They would be afraid to make minorities look bad. Yet it's OK to give out the locations and the types of guns that law-abiding gun owners have. The Star recently offered my wife and I a free subscription and didn't even ask if we wanted it. That paper is not good enough for me to wipe me arse with, much less read.
First, the good ol' CBC, who, unfortunately, happened to give us two of our recent Governor-Generals, Michaelle Jean (current) and Andrienne Clarkson. No, I dislike them not because they are women, but because they are left-wing, tree-hugging nutjobs (and in Jean's case, she is a known sympathizer of Quebec separatism). Anyway, CBC, the station that tries to make itself "culturally relevant" by bringing you the not-very-funny and ridiculous-concepted Little Mosque on the Prairie, has shown again and again, its absolute willingness to all-out lie to advance its liberal agenda.
The latest attempt can be seen here in this CBC Marketplace report:
CBC Market Place "Report" on Replica Guns
The subject is replica guns.
Now, why does this matter to me? Well, due to this report, my local gunshop now no longer stocks air pistols (BB and pellet). Watch the report first and then keep reading here.
There are several issues with this documentary. One is that the CBC marketplace reporter and crew take several liberties to deliberately make guns look like they're some sort of evil, even though common sense will tell you a gun is just an inanimate piece of metal, an object. These are not in any chronological order, but my first and biggest issue is with the reporter. She has no clue that there are different classes of airguns. They just said that there are BB guns and airsoft guns. Obviously this is not true. So, based on what I know, I'll give you the facts.
Airguns are propelled in one of four ways: 1) by pumping air into the gun, compressing it. When the trigger is pulled, that air is released, pushing the projectile with it. 2) by compressing a spring, usually by breaking the barrel (most often on air rifles). When the trigger is pressed, the spring decompresses, pushing air out and the projectile with it. 3) CO2 gas cartridges, which is CO2 gas in a canister, either 12g or 88g. A pull of a trigger releases measured amounts of the gas which push the projectile out of the gun. 4) PCP, which I believe stands for pre-charged pneumatic (if it's different, contact me - it's late and I'm too lazy right now to look it up) which is pre-filled either with an airtank or manually pumping something like a bicycle pump to fill up the air tank. It's beyond the scope of this blog entry to discuss the pros and cons, but that's a general rule of the power plant options for airguns.
Airguns are broken down into many categories:
I don't consider airsoft a true airgun categorty, but airsoft shoots very light plastic projectiles and its velocity (how fast the projectile goes when leaving the barrel) is around 200 - 350FPS (feet per second). This is what people use for airsoft wars and airsoft guns are often marked by that ugly and tacky orange tip at the end of the gun. I am not into airsoft at all as you can probably tell by now.
BB guns shoot a small steel ball (BB) - they are ALWAYS under 500FPS. Their accuracy is not good because of the fact that they get shot out of smooth barrels. Mostly for plinking and backyard fun.
Pellet guns are lead pellets which have a front end and a skirted end, the front end can be any number of shapes including flat (wadcutter), round, pointed, and hollowpoint. Depending on the power of the gun, the use of the pellet can be anywhere from casual target shooting and plinking to competition target shooting to hunting. The CBC Marketplace report did not make this differentiation and also failed to mention that many pellet guns (a lot of rifles) require a firearms licence, as they shoot over 500FPS AND generate more than 4.2FPE (foot points energy).
By not making these distinctions, one who knows nothing about airguns can think of airsoft in the same vein as a pellet gun in the same vein as a BB gun. They are all different.
In the report they got this teenage guy to go into the store to buy a airgun (probably airsoft). He walks out with it and brandishes it in public. Law-abiding gun owners, whether firearms grade or not, do not do this. The CBC either does not realize, or does not care, that what that kid did is against the law. Yet the impression they want to leave is that anyone can go in and buy this and start shooting at people.
Also, that part about finding airsoft plastic BBs all over the street. Yeah, that was as much of a plant as I have ever seen. So all the sudden they are talking, look down and lo and behold, there are airsoft BBs strewn all over the street. Yeah right. Why would CBC lie about this? The same reason as another instance you saw and are about to read my assessment.
That lady reporter blatantly lied when she went to shoot that airsoft gun in Port Perry. First, it was an airsoft gun - I can tell by the report / sound of the gun not to mention by looking at it. Even if you argue it was a BB or pellet gun, what she did with it is impossible. Upon shooting it, she gave a recoil with her hands and said "Geez Louise!". Like, what-the-hell-ever, lady. Neither BB or pellet or airsoft guns recoil - they don't make air pistols shooting over 500FPS so whatever she shot can not and did not recoil. The only gun that I have felt recoil that was an airgun was a Gamo Hunter Extreme, which shoots...1400FPS. That is a firearms grade airgun, and even then, the recoil was so, so mild (it's really just the spring decompressing). Air pistols don't recoil, sorry.
Now, where this affects me. My favourite outdoors store, Le Baron - their gunshop immediately pulled all of their air pistols from their shelves because the CBC showed several pages of their catalog selling pages and pages of air pistols. What they neglected to show is that it is explictly stated that permits are required for certain models of airguns. Also, LeBaron's policy, not shown in CBC Marketplace is to visually inspect and record ID information for all airgun and ammo purchases (even if it is not firearms grade). I have been in the gunshop and seen them turn down people due to lack of ID. So that 14-year-old kid in the Marketplace story who went into some shady store in Vancouver to get an airsoft gun, he wouldn't have had that easy of a time at LeBaron.
Now, I'll focus on the Toronto Star. They recently had a series of reports about guns in Toronto (guess it was to capitalize on some of the hoopla surrounding last week's Toronto's Sportsmen Show, which also is a topic in and of itself for another time and another day). I'm not sure what their goal was, but if you look at the first article, it had this gunshop owner pointed out a side-by-side (SXS) shotgun in the direction of the camera. The average person who is not conversant with guns may look at that and not think good things. I think that was the star's point. But if you look carefully, you'll see that the gunshop owner has the action broken (hinge) and is obviously checking the gun - he's not deliberately pointing it at the cameraman. The gun is totally safe. Second, he has a plethora of other guns all under glass shelving behind him - I hope that that is a detail that is not lost on people - law abiding gun owners go above and beyond to ensure that their guns are locked up to meet and exceed legal standards.
I wonder about the Star's true intentions in publishing a map of which area / jurisdiction owns the most guns in the Toronto area, including exact numbers of guns owned, whether the gun owners are hunters or merely target shooters and whether the per capita ownership of guns in that area has been increasing or decreasing over time (trending). I fail to see what point of providing this information is, other than to give potential criminals a shopping list of where to find the most guns. I won't discuss the exact specifics, but I do want to make a very clear point, and I don't care how it sounds:
The two highest places with the highest gun ownership rates are heavily populated with people of European descent. I would bet my bottom dollar that these areas are very, very low crime areas (and this would be in line with John Lott's theory in More Guns, Less Crime).
Conversely, the two areas with the smallest percentage of legal gun ownership are...(drumroll) the Jane and Finch corridor area, and Rexdale, both heavily Black-populated areas and high crime areas. This again is consistent with U.S. statistics of big cities who have large urban African-American populations, greater crime, and the lowest rates of gun ownerships. If any demographic needs to have more law-abiding gun owners, it is in these areas. This also proves once again that gun control does not work - anywhere you look, places that have more guns by law abiding citizens have less crime and places where guns are either frowned upon or banned outright, crime is very high (and to no one's surprise, gun crime, with use of illegally obtained guns).
Of course, the Toronto Star would never produce any type of crime statistics based on race or culture. They would be afraid to make minorities look bad. Yet it's OK to give out the locations and the types of guns that law-abiding gun owners have. The Star recently offered my wife and I a free subscription and didn't even ask if we wanted it. That paper is not good enough for me to wipe me arse with, much less read.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Get Yer Ammo Now Before They're Gone, Boys and Girls...
Maybe it's me, but the last six months or so, I have noticed an general increase in anything firearm related. No more evident was this than when I went to my local gunshop recently (3 weeks ago) to buy a few rounds of .223 Remington and happened upon one of the two boxes that had a lower sticker price. The clerk swore under her breath, and said, "Fine, I'll give two boxes to you at the same price." I asked her why the price discrepancy, and she said, "price of ammo went up". Now, I sort of knew this for the .22 rounds that I bought in December, compared to the cheaper price that I got the same rounds for in August. At the time, I was told that the price shift was due to the Canadian dollar weakening. Makes sense. I asked if it had anything to do with Obama winning the U.S. election. Maybe, is the general answer received by many with whom I've spoken.
I even more recently (yesterday) thought I'd buy another box of the .223, since it seemed like it was in short supply, and when the lady got the box out, the price tag was higher than 3 weeks ago...the total jump from last year's price to yesterday's price was something like 23%. I didn't end up buying the ammo, since I figured that I don't shoot .223 that often, but I wonder whether I should have bought the box while I was there.
I have noticed everything from airguns to air rifles to firearms have been increasing in price, as well as the ammo. I find it hard to believe that all this has to do with the Canadian dollar. If nothing else, you would think that prices would be lowered in these crappy economic times. But I did a little bit of digging, and the firearms industry is doing just fine. In fact, demand has far outstripped supply recently, and there have been a lot of people suggesting that Obama is on the cusp of implementing his anti-gun agenda, if he hasn't already started. One would have to be a complete idiot to believe that Obama is not going to do anything restrictive when it comes to guns. His voting record indicates that he is a staunch gun controller, and he has surrounded himself with people who share the same view.
I was reading about a report that has circulated around the internet that says that Canadian officials feel a certain affinity with Obama and would like to test the waters with an ammunition import ban, partuclarly "military-type" of rounds like the NATO 5.56x45mm and 7.65x51mm, amongst others. Essentially, you will see rounds like the .223 and .308 affected, as well as .50BMG and others.
Now, this is nothing new. And it is consistent with what I have been seeing - for instance, you'd be hard-pressed to find the Butler Creek 25-round mag for the Ruger 10/22 in any Canadian store nowadays, unless it's old stock, and even then, it would have been already snatched up. The U.S. government last year decided to stop the export of these to Canada, since they feared that it would make the 10/22 look more military-like with a large capacity clip. Yet, you can find the 25 round clip for the Remington 597 (similar class gun as the 10/22) anywhere. Also, for those who have restricted PALs in Canada, you may have a harder time finding the popular AR-15, as the Canadian government considers it in the "assault rifle" class and sets the AR-15 as a restricted weapon, because of its military and bad-ass type of look. And it shoots the .223 round, which is considered "military class". Yet, you can easily find non-restricted semi-automatic rifles that shoot much more powerful calibers, but they are not put in such a scrutinized class, because they "look less dangerous" and look more like a hunting rifle (which they are).
Anyway, I can see the collective governments of our two countries coming to some sort of agreement on limiting available guns and ammunition. Even though I support Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative government party, I get the sense that while he may be a fiscal conservative and to a degree a social one, the guns issue is not high on his priority list. Consider the fact that there was much talk of the Conservative scrapping the hated Canadian long-gun registry. Harper's been in power for 3+ years now, and the registry is still on the books. If you couple this with his seemingly positive first experience with President Obama during his visit last month, you would think that they were best buddies.
Anyway, the point is that I can personally substantiate the fact that ammo and guns are going up in price. Some guns are now no longer sold at my gunshop, even higher power air rifles - the reasons remain unknown (at least to me) though I have my suspicions. Your best bet at this time would be to stock up on ammo as much as possible. No, this is not an alarmist approach as with stocking up bottled water during the Y2K scenario a decade ago. That was based on speculation and conjecture and not really based on any concrete evidence that the world was going to blow up. Of course, I am not suggesting that now, but what I am saying is that I can read the tea leaves as much as the next guy, and seeing the trend in the past year has led me to believe that at some point, law abiding gun owners will have more restrictions put on them than ever before, and while I detest the act of hoarding, sometimes you need to in order to preserve your way of life, as well as defend your individual rights. At the very least, you will know that you are contributing to probably the only active and flourishing industry in these bad economic times.
I even more recently (yesterday) thought I'd buy another box of the .223, since it seemed like it was in short supply, and when the lady got the box out, the price tag was higher than 3 weeks ago...the total jump from last year's price to yesterday's price was something like 23%. I didn't end up buying the ammo, since I figured that I don't shoot .223 that often, but I wonder whether I should have bought the box while I was there.
I have noticed everything from airguns to air rifles to firearms have been increasing in price, as well as the ammo. I find it hard to believe that all this has to do with the Canadian dollar. If nothing else, you would think that prices would be lowered in these crappy economic times. But I did a little bit of digging, and the firearms industry is doing just fine. In fact, demand has far outstripped supply recently, and there have been a lot of people suggesting that Obama is on the cusp of implementing his anti-gun agenda, if he hasn't already started. One would have to be a complete idiot to believe that Obama is not going to do anything restrictive when it comes to guns. His voting record indicates that he is a staunch gun controller, and he has surrounded himself with people who share the same view.
I was reading about a report that has circulated around the internet that says that Canadian officials feel a certain affinity with Obama and would like to test the waters with an ammunition import ban, partuclarly "military-type" of rounds like the NATO 5.56x45mm and 7.65x51mm, amongst others. Essentially, you will see rounds like the .223 and .308 affected, as well as .50BMG and others.
Now, this is nothing new. And it is consistent with what I have been seeing - for instance, you'd be hard-pressed to find the Butler Creek 25-round mag for the Ruger 10/22 in any Canadian store nowadays, unless it's old stock, and even then, it would have been already snatched up. The U.S. government last year decided to stop the export of these to Canada, since they feared that it would make the 10/22 look more military-like with a large capacity clip. Yet, you can find the 25 round clip for the Remington 597 (similar class gun as the 10/22) anywhere. Also, for those who have restricted PALs in Canada, you may have a harder time finding the popular AR-15, as the Canadian government considers it in the "assault rifle" class and sets the AR-15 as a restricted weapon, because of its military and bad-ass type of look. And it shoots the .223 round, which is considered "military class". Yet, you can easily find non-restricted semi-automatic rifles that shoot much more powerful calibers, but they are not put in such a scrutinized class, because they "look less dangerous" and look more like a hunting rifle (which they are).
Anyway, I can see the collective governments of our two countries coming to some sort of agreement on limiting available guns and ammunition. Even though I support Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative government party, I get the sense that while he may be a fiscal conservative and to a degree a social one, the guns issue is not high on his priority list. Consider the fact that there was much talk of the Conservative scrapping the hated Canadian long-gun registry. Harper's been in power for 3+ years now, and the registry is still on the books. If you couple this with his seemingly positive first experience with President Obama during his visit last month, you would think that they were best buddies.
Anyway, the point is that I can personally substantiate the fact that ammo and guns are going up in price. Some guns are now no longer sold at my gunshop, even higher power air rifles - the reasons remain unknown (at least to me) though I have my suspicions. Your best bet at this time would be to stock up on ammo as much as possible. No, this is not an alarmist approach as with stocking up bottled water during the Y2K scenario a decade ago. That was based on speculation and conjecture and not really based on any concrete evidence that the world was going to blow up. Of course, I am not suggesting that now, but what I am saying is that I can read the tea leaves as much as the next guy, and seeing the trend in the past year has led me to believe that at some point, law abiding gun owners will have more restrictions put on them than ever before, and while I detest the act of hoarding, sometimes you need to in order to preserve your way of life, as well as defend your individual rights. At the very least, you will know that you are contributing to probably the only active and flourishing industry in these bad economic times.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Airguns For Self-Defence? Don't Even Think About It
This past year, I worked with a new fella in my office, who I found out later, owned an airgun. This, I would consider unusual in the very liberal Toronto, and especially in a white-collar industry like IT, where opinions, just like the technology are considered and even expected, to be progressive. You can imagine how much I stick out like a sore thumb, and being an Asian gun enthusiast as well, which nowadays is pretty rare. There are less than a handful of people on my whole account (and customer site) who own any type of gun, much less holds a firearms licence. So it always intrigues me to meet people who have even a passing interest in guns.
This guy I worked with happened to own a similar airgun as one of the many that I own. He owned a Walther CP Sport. I have since sold mine, but I have a review on this blog, so check it out if you are interested in this gun. But anyway, it's a CO2-powered semi-automatic .177 caliber air pistol. It's also one of more weaker airguns out there, shooting at a maximum of 360FPS, which, I will concede, is not as weak as airsoft, but don't expect it to be a pest control gun.
My colleague, keeping his voice low, shared with me that he bought the airgun with the sole purpose of using it as a self-defence weapon. When I heard him say that I was shocked. I asked him how many guns he owns, and he said just that one. He said that he thought it was pretty powerful. I asked him if he had any idea what the impact of a .177 caliber pellet at 360FPS (maximum) would be? He didn't, so I gave him some perspective. The Canadian firearms classification starts with fired projectiles travelling at 500FPS or higher AND generating more than 4.2FPE (foot pounds energy). You cannot even humanely kill or even injure a squirrel with a 450FPS airgun (a small mouse, yes, but nothing larger). So don't expect to take down a home invader.
It has been said that part of the Canadian government's classification numbers may have to do with the penetrating effect of a projectile, given a certain velocity and transfer of energy. I have never heard this officially substantiated by the Canadian Firearms Centre, but it does make some sense, in terms of how to classify something as a firearm (ie. can it cause serious or lethal injury).
I gave him some more perspective - a CO2 semi-automatic may sound cool, with rapid fire and an eight-shot magazine, but as anyone who knows anything about airguns can attest, the faster you fire a CO2 gun, the more velocity you lose on subsequent shots - it's because of the cold gas that is released by the CO2 cartridge everytime you pull the trigger. A colder environment inside the gun makes a pellet go slower (another knock against CO2 guns being used in the wintertime). So that maximum 360FPS will turn out to be in the mid-200 to 250FPS, which will cause a slight bruise for someone running around naked, but will hardly penetrate thick clothing, much less skin. If nothing else, your home invader or bad guy will simply get irritated at the fact that you're trying to shoot him and now it gives him the licence to exact maximum injury on you, now that he knows you don't have a "real gun". My friend said that the replica nature of the CP Sport may be a deterrent enough. Personally, I wouldn't put my life on the line for a possibility.
Finally, I shared with him the fact that the most powerful airgun I own is the Gamo Viper Express .22 Caliber Air Shotgun / Rifle combo. This gun requires a firearms licence, and shoots either a very limited of #9 lead shot at around 1200FPS (maximum) or with an chamber adapter, shoots .22 caliber pellets at 850FPS (maximum). Remember, a heavier pellet like a .22 will impart much more energy on impact than its smaller counterpart, at the same velocity. All that being said, despite the fact that the Viper Express is a firearms-rated airgun, I would not recommend anyone to use it for self-defence. The power is just not there. Some self-defence experts would even contend that the lower-velocity rimfire type of firearms are inadquate for self-defence, despite the fact that they will shoot a .22 caliber bullet at generally over 1000FPS. In my view, where you can maybe come close is having something like a Ruger 10/22 with a Butler Creek 25-mag, full of CCI .22 LR Stingers. Those will shoot over 1600FPS, but their accuracy suffers. But problem with using anything rimfire is that likely you will need more than one shot, and that's going to be hard to explain to the cops why you shot the bad guy full of holes.
Some have said that having something is better than nothing, but I disagree. Having nothing at least poses no resistance to the perp, and unless he's hellbent on killing or raping you, it may be in your best interest to simply let him take whatever he wants. Now, I know home invasions don't always work that way, but imagine this - you are stumbling in the dark, reaching for your airgun, hoping that the CO2 still will carry at least 8 shots. Even if you get your shot off, you are looking at reduced stopping power for subsequent CO2 shots. That is the nature of a CO2 gun. You will need a lot more than one shot to stop the intruder, and so a CO2 airgun is a really poor choice, even a CO2 repeating air rifle that requires a firearms licence. In essence, with airguns you are stuck with several problems: 1) multiple shots are needed, but the effect of subsequent shots make it useless on a CO2 gun, 2) there is no no-CO2 repeating airgun, and 3) you definitely don't want to rely on something that is single-shot, spring-action or break-barrel.
Now, the one caveat here - an airgun can be used IF you are such a good shot that you can hit the bad guy in the eye every time. Most airguns will rupture an eyeball without much difficulty, but getting to the point where you can take out an eye is a pretty gruesome thought, and given the fact that the conditions in which you may actually have to do this are less than ideal (low light conditions, time of night and exhaustion issues, movement and space issues, not to mention the fact that you're likely crapping your pants at the time), it's probably more pie-in-the-sky thinking than anything else.
Have airguns ever been used successfully to ward off an attacker? Probably. In fact, I know of a case in South America where a guy was able to chase away a bad guy by shooting him with a relatively low-powered airgun. But remember, if you put all your eggs in one basket with exceptional-case scenarios such as this, you are not looking at the possibility that there are many criminals who aren't so easily chased away. Remember, the criminal mind does not think long-term. Some criminals will kill you for looking at them the wrong way. Don't assume that you'll be able to scare off or chase off most criminals. If they are indeed packing heat, then you pulling out an airgun has just authorized them to shoot you with a real gun in supposed self-defence. Do you want to take this chance?
I have heard of people who still believe airguns are worth using as self-defence and will alter their airguns so that they are multiple times more powerful. Personally, I think these people are playing with fire, since doing this is not only illegal, but can likely get your arrested, since if you alter an air pistol to shoot over 500FPS, you are now looking at a restricted or even a prohibited weapon, according to Canada's fiearms classifications. Very likely the gun will not even be classifiable, since it wasn't manufactured that way and registered with the Canadian government. But let's hypothesize that it was legal to do this (which it definitely is not, I want to emphasize). I still don't believe an airgun shooting a .22 CAL pellet at around 16.2 grains, at a velocity of 500-1000FPS is suitable. Remember, rimfire .22 bullets are around 32 or 40 grain, go at least 1000FPS in general, and I (and others) do not consider them to be viable for self-defence.
Then there are the obvious legal issues. Now, I have previously said that if you are planning to have anything for self-defence, that you had better be prepared to use it to STOP the bad guy, only in situations where you fear for your life or the life of a loved one. Never shoot to kill - your intention should not be pre-meditated killing. Shooting someone for stealing your TV is not excuseable. That being said, the ability to stop the bad guy is not so much determined by your skill level or shooting ability than by what you choose as your self-defence weapon. As I already mentioned, I do not believe airguns to be sufficient. In my humble opinion, the best home defence weapon (for reasons beyond the scope of this blog entry, though I write about this elsewhere on this blog) is a 12 or 20-gauge pump action shotgun, that you can quickly load with something like #3 buckshot, or lower. Be forewarned though - this is a very lethal combination and if you plan to use this, be prepared to accept responsibility for your actions.
In Canada, specifically, buying arms for self-defence is frowned upon, and discouraged. Reason is, unlike the U.S., there are stringent safe-storage laws in Canada. So a person who has any type of firearm in Canada is legally required to keep them unloaded, and locked up in a suitable gun cabinet or safe. The ammo also needs to be locked up separately. Now, think about this - given these legal requirements, how likely is it that you can have a fully functional ready-to-go self-defence arm? If you happen to be very fast and can get to all these individual components, unlocking / relocking and loading your arm all within the span of a couple of minutes, the Canadian government can charge you with unsafe storage, no matter what you say otherwise (their argument is that the laws make it virtually impossible to get to your gun for self-defence, so there's no way you should have been able to do it unless you weren't following safe storage laws). Moreover, if you end up shooting someone, even in a justified self-defence response, and they somehow manage to live, be prepared to be tried as a criminal and having your firearms confiscated as a result, even though you're the one who was violated. Sad, isn't it. Welcome to Canada.
This guy I worked with happened to own a similar airgun as one of the many that I own. He owned a Walther CP Sport. I have since sold mine, but I have a review on this blog, so check it out if you are interested in this gun. But anyway, it's a CO2-powered semi-automatic .177 caliber air pistol. It's also one of more weaker airguns out there, shooting at a maximum of 360FPS, which, I will concede, is not as weak as airsoft, but don't expect it to be a pest control gun.
My colleague, keeping his voice low, shared with me that he bought the airgun with the sole purpose of using it as a self-defence weapon. When I heard him say that I was shocked. I asked him how many guns he owns, and he said just that one. He said that he thought it was pretty powerful. I asked him if he had any idea what the impact of a .177 caliber pellet at 360FPS (maximum) would be? He didn't, so I gave him some perspective. The Canadian firearms classification starts with fired projectiles travelling at 500FPS or higher AND generating more than 4.2FPE (foot pounds energy). You cannot even humanely kill or even injure a squirrel with a 450FPS airgun (a small mouse, yes, but nothing larger). So don't expect to take down a home invader.
It has been said that part of the Canadian government's classification numbers may have to do with the penetrating effect of a projectile, given a certain velocity and transfer of energy. I have never heard this officially substantiated by the Canadian Firearms Centre, but it does make some sense, in terms of how to classify something as a firearm (ie. can it cause serious or lethal injury).
I gave him some more perspective - a CO2 semi-automatic may sound cool, with rapid fire and an eight-shot magazine, but as anyone who knows anything about airguns can attest, the faster you fire a CO2 gun, the more velocity you lose on subsequent shots - it's because of the cold gas that is released by the CO2 cartridge everytime you pull the trigger. A colder environment inside the gun makes a pellet go slower (another knock against CO2 guns being used in the wintertime). So that maximum 360FPS will turn out to be in the mid-200 to 250FPS, which will cause a slight bruise for someone running around naked, but will hardly penetrate thick clothing, much less skin. If nothing else, your home invader or bad guy will simply get irritated at the fact that you're trying to shoot him and now it gives him the licence to exact maximum injury on you, now that he knows you don't have a "real gun". My friend said that the replica nature of the CP Sport may be a deterrent enough. Personally, I wouldn't put my life on the line for a possibility.
Finally, I shared with him the fact that the most powerful airgun I own is the Gamo Viper Express .22 Caliber Air Shotgun / Rifle combo. This gun requires a firearms licence, and shoots either a very limited of #9 lead shot at around 1200FPS (maximum) or with an chamber adapter, shoots .22 caliber pellets at 850FPS (maximum). Remember, a heavier pellet like a .22 will impart much more energy on impact than its smaller counterpart, at the same velocity. All that being said, despite the fact that the Viper Express is a firearms-rated airgun, I would not recommend anyone to use it for self-defence. The power is just not there. Some self-defence experts would even contend that the lower-velocity rimfire type of firearms are inadquate for self-defence, despite the fact that they will shoot a .22 caliber bullet at generally over 1000FPS. In my view, where you can maybe come close is having something like a Ruger 10/22 with a Butler Creek 25-mag, full of CCI .22 LR Stingers. Those will shoot over 1600FPS, but their accuracy suffers. But problem with using anything rimfire is that likely you will need more than one shot, and that's going to be hard to explain to the cops why you shot the bad guy full of holes.
Some have said that having something is better than nothing, but I disagree. Having nothing at least poses no resistance to the perp, and unless he's hellbent on killing or raping you, it may be in your best interest to simply let him take whatever he wants. Now, I know home invasions don't always work that way, but imagine this - you are stumbling in the dark, reaching for your airgun, hoping that the CO2 still will carry at least 8 shots. Even if you get your shot off, you are looking at reduced stopping power for subsequent CO2 shots. That is the nature of a CO2 gun. You will need a lot more than one shot to stop the intruder, and so a CO2 airgun is a really poor choice, even a CO2 repeating air rifle that requires a firearms licence. In essence, with airguns you are stuck with several problems: 1) multiple shots are needed, but the effect of subsequent shots make it useless on a CO2 gun, 2) there is no no-CO2 repeating airgun, and 3) you definitely don't want to rely on something that is single-shot, spring-action or break-barrel.
Now, the one caveat here - an airgun can be used IF you are such a good shot that you can hit the bad guy in the eye every time. Most airguns will rupture an eyeball without much difficulty, but getting to the point where you can take out an eye is a pretty gruesome thought, and given the fact that the conditions in which you may actually have to do this are less than ideal (low light conditions, time of night and exhaustion issues, movement and space issues, not to mention the fact that you're likely crapping your pants at the time), it's probably more pie-in-the-sky thinking than anything else.
Have airguns ever been used successfully to ward off an attacker? Probably. In fact, I know of a case in South America where a guy was able to chase away a bad guy by shooting him with a relatively low-powered airgun. But remember, if you put all your eggs in one basket with exceptional-case scenarios such as this, you are not looking at the possibility that there are many criminals who aren't so easily chased away. Remember, the criminal mind does not think long-term. Some criminals will kill you for looking at them the wrong way. Don't assume that you'll be able to scare off or chase off most criminals. If they are indeed packing heat, then you pulling out an airgun has just authorized them to shoot you with a real gun in supposed self-defence. Do you want to take this chance?
I have heard of people who still believe airguns are worth using as self-defence and will alter their airguns so that they are multiple times more powerful. Personally, I think these people are playing with fire, since doing this is not only illegal, but can likely get your arrested, since if you alter an air pistol to shoot over 500FPS, you are now looking at a restricted or even a prohibited weapon, according to Canada's fiearms classifications. Very likely the gun will not even be classifiable, since it wasn't manufactured that way and registered with the Canadian government. But let's hypothesize that it was legal to do this (which it definitely is not, I want to emphasize). I still don't believe an airgun shooting a .22 CAL pellet at around 16.2 grains, at a velocity of 500-1000FPS is suitable. Remember, rimfire .22 bullets are around 32 or 40 grain, go at least 1000FPS in general, and I (and others) do not consider them to be viable for self-defence.
Then there are the obvious legal issues. Now, I have previously said that if you are planning to have anything for self-defence, that you had better be prepared to use it to STOP the bad guy, only in situations where you fear for your life or the life of a loved one. Never shoot to kill - your intention should not be pre-meditated killing. Shooting someone for stealing your TV is not excuseable. That being said, the ability to stop the bad guy is not so much determined by your skill level or shooting ability than by what you choose as your self-defence weapon. As I already mentioned, I do not believe airguns to be sufficient. In my humble opinion, the best home defence weapon (for reasons beyond the scope of this blog entry, though I write about this elsewhere on this blog) is a 12 or 20-gauge pump action shotgun, that you can quickly load with something like #3 buckshot, or lower. Be forewarned though - this is a very lethal combination and if you plan to use this, be prepared to accept responsibility for your actions.
In Canada, specifically, buying arms for self-defence is frowned upon, and discouraged. Reason is, unlike the U.S., there are stringent safe-storage laws in Canada. So a person who has any type of firearm in Canada is legally required to keep them unloaded, and locked up in a suitable gun cabinet or safe. The ammo also needs to be locked up separately. Now, think about this - given these legal requirements, how likely is it that you can have a fully functional ready-to-go self-defence arm? If you happen to be very fast and can get to all these individual components, unlocking / relocking and loading your arm all within the span of a couple of minutes, the Canadian government can charge you with unsafe storage, no matter what you say otherwise (their argument is that the laws make it virtually impossible to get to your gun for self-defence, so there's no way you should have been able to do it unless you weren't following safe storage laws). Moreover, if you end up shooting someone, even in a justified self-defence response, and they somehow manage to live, be prepared to be tried as a criminal and having your firearms confiscated as a result, even though you're the one who was violated. Sad, isn't it. Welcome to Canada.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
David Miller and Dalton McGunity's Continuing Call for a Handgun Ban
Lately, there have been a rash of gun related crime in Toronto, most notably in several schools, as well as the high profile murder last Tuesday of a fellow who was shot right on the 401 (a major 8+ lane highway in Toronto) and dumped onto the highway in the middle of the day, in front of shocked drivers. Of course, with it now being election season (again), politicians are positioning themselves as trying vet their own political agendas, under the guise of trying to find solutions to crime. The latest account of this is with Toronto mayor David Miller (NDP) and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty (Liberal), both of whom have renewed calls for a handgun ban not only in Toronto, but nationally.
On the surface, to those who aren't well read on crime and guns, and who are generally not in favour of firearm possession, it sounds like they are getting tough on crime, right? But let's look at their position a little deeper here.
Let's face it, few want to publicly admit this, so I will be happy to do it. First, let's look at these crimes - make no bones about it, you will see a very clear commonality here, that few are wanting to admit. These crimes, for the most part, are perpetrated by young black men, and the victims are often young black men. The crimes have occurred in relatively heavier-populated black areas. You can't debate this with me - just pull up the news and check out the location of the shootings. Second, there is a gang component tied into a number of these shootings. Third, from the few arrests that have been made, it is discovered that the handguns used are by and large stolen and smuggled from the U.S. David Miller actually has the gonads to flat-face lie to the public and say that 60-70% of guns from crimes are either legally obtained or stolen from legal owners here in Canada. A police officer was interviewed this afternoon, who was on an anti-gang squad in Toronto, and he vehemently maintained that the percentage is more like 3 - 6%, and confirmed what we all know - that guns used in crimes are almost always stolen and smuggled from the U.S.
Why am I mentioning all this? Because of the fact that if the municipal or provincial jurisdiction were able to successfully enact a handgun ban, nothing would change. Crime would not go down. Why? Because the criminals don't give a rat's ass about following the law. Does anyone seriously think that a law outlawing all handgun possession would cause any criminal element to think twice about using handguns and / or register their stolen handguns? Think about this - it is illegal to rape or murder someone. It is illegal to steal someone's car. Yet these things happen every day, because criminals do not observe or respect the laws in place - that is the nature of the criminal mind.
If nothing else, such a handgun ban would target and penalize the law-abiding handgun owner, who took the time and expense to fill out an application for a licence, take the mandatory course, pay the fees, subject themselves to an exhaustive criminal check and waiting period, after providing written approval by one's spouse and several references. And to top it off, in Canada, owning a handgun is very restrictive as is. There are maybe a handful of people in CANADA who have a conceal carry licence. For the average Joe who wants to get a handgun licence (Restricted Possession and Acquisition Licence, or RPAL), they would then need to apply for a Authorization to Transport (ATT) licence, who only allows them to transport the handgun from their residence to an approved shooting range. That's it.
And, if you look at the typical profile of a gun owner, it is not a young black male from a broken home with little to no education. The vast majority of gun owners, whether it be handgun or long gun, are older folks with no criminal records, and who use the guns for sport shooting, hunting, or target shooting. They store their guns responsibly and obey all laws regarding the safe transport and use of their firearms. Those are the people who would be targeted with such a proposed ban, not the criminals.
You can draw a parallel to prohibition in the 1920s. How did that turn out when all alcohol was banned? People still managed to find alcohol illegal and a whole underground criminal element came into being in order to smuggle alcohol.
This is a complex issue, so I don't presume to have all the answers. Some people have said that the answer is for young black men to keep it in their pants and not father child after child with different black women who can't keep their legs shut and subsequently are faced with the daunting task of raising a child without a father present, and in trying to work long hours just to provide for the child, ends up not being able to spend the quality time with him, and as such the child joins a gang, and on and on it goes. This argument is fine, but it's not realistic - you can't change the problematic element in the community by idealistic wishful thinking. Sure, these young men who father these children should take responsibility for their actions, but who among us is going to enforce this or even teach it?
For me, I think that a possible solution is to increase the penalties for gun crimes. Some say that this would flood the system, but better these people in jails than on the street. With the Canadian revolving door justice system, no one spends an inordinate amount of time in the penal system - with good behaviour and a good lawyer, you'd be lucky if you even served half your sentence. By making the laws tougher, it at least removes more criminals off our street. And if they are 15 or 16, treat them as adults - they know what they are doing.
I've always endorsed the death penalty for murder, and for those who talk about crowding in jails with convicted murderers, this is one way you can cost-effectively deal with the situation. Sure, the bleeding hearts will say that it is cruel, but so is the murderous act that they did. Too bad, so sad.
On the surface, to those who aren't well read on crime and guns, and who are generally not in favour of firearm possession, it sounds like they are getting tough on crime, right? But let's look at their position a little deeper here.
Let's face it, few want to publicly admit this, so I will be happy to do it. First, let's look at these crimes - make no bones about it, you will see a very clear commonality here, that few are wanting to admit. These crimes, for the most part, are perpetrated by young black men, and the victims are often young black men. The crimes have occurred in relatively heavier-populated black areas. You can't debate this with me - just pull up the news and check out the location of the shootings. Second, there is a gang component tied into a number of these shootings. Third, from the few arrests that have been made, it is discovered that the handguns used are by and large stolen and smuggled from the U.S. David Miller actually has the gonads to flat-face lie to the public and say that 60-70% of guns from crimes are either legally obtained or stolen from legal owners here in Canada. A police officer was interviewed this afternoon, who was on an anti-gang squad in Toronto, and he vehemently maintained that the percentage is more like 3 - 6%, and confirmed what we all know - that guns used in crimes are almost always stolen and smuggled from the U.S.
Why am I mentioning all this? Because of the fact that if the municipal or provincial jurisdiction were able to successfully enact a handgun ban, nothing would change. Crime would not go down. Why? Because the criminals don't give a rat's ass about following the law. Does anyone seriously think that a law outlawing all handgun possession would cause any criminal element to think twice about using handguns and / or register their stolen handguns? Think about this - it is illegal to rape or murder someone. It is illegal to steal someone's car. Yet these things happen every day, because criminals do not observe or respect the laws in place - that is the nature of the criminal mind.
If nothing else, such a handgun ban would target and penalize the law-abiding handgun owner, who took the time and expense to fill out an application for a licence, take the mandatory course, pay the fees, subject themselves to an exhaustive criminal check and waiting period, after providing written approval by one's spouse and several references. And to top it off, in Canada, owning a handgun is very restrictive as is. There are maybe a handful of people in CANADA who have a conceal carry licence. For the average Joe who wants to get a handgun licence (Restricted Possession and Acquisition Licence, or RPAL), they would then need to apply for a Authorization to Transport (ATT) licence, who only allows them to transport the handgun from their residence to an approved shooting range. That's it.
And, if you look at the typical profile of a gun owner, it is not a young black male from a broken home with little to no education. The vast majority of gun owners, whether it be handgun or long gun, are older folks with no criminal records, and who use the guns for sport shooting, hunting, or target shooting. They store their guns responsibly and obey all laws regarding the safe transport and use of their firearms. Those are the people who would be targeted with such a proposed ban, not the criminals.
You can draw a parallel to prohibition in the 1920s. How did that turn out when all alcohol was banned? People still managed to find alcohol illegal and a whole underground criminal element came into being in order to smuggle alcohol.
This is a complex issue, so I don't presume to have all the answers. Some people have said that the answer is for young black men to keep it in their pants and not father child after child with different black women who can't keep their legs shut and subsequently are faced with the daunting task of raising a child without a father present, and in trying to work long hours just to provide for the child, ends up not being able to spend the quality time with him, and as such the child joins a gang, and on and on it goes. This argument is fine, but it's not realistic - you can't change the problematic element in the community by idealistic wishful thinking. Sure, these young men who father these children should take responsibility for their actions, but who among us is going to enforce this or even teach it?
For me, I think that a possible solution is to increase the penalties for gun crimes. Some say that this would flood the system, but better these people in jails than on the street. With the Canadian revolving door justice system, no one spends an inordinate amount of time in the penal system - with good behaviour and a good lawyer, you'd be lucky if you even served half your sentence. By making the laws tougher, it at least removes more criminals off our street. And if they are 15 or 16, treat them as adults - they know what they are doing.
I've always endorsed the death penalty for murder, and for those who talk about crowding in jails with convicted murderers, this is one way you can cost-effectively deal with the situation. Sure, the bleeding hearts will say that it is cruel, but so is the murderous act that they did. Too bad, so sad.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Gamo Viper Express Air Shotgun / Rifle Review
This may be a bit counter-intuitive, in reviewing a product that some stores are seemingly pulling off their shelves, and given rumours that Gamo may completely discontinue this product, but for the benefit of those who have access to purchase this very unique product, I will share with you my thoughts on the Gamo Viper Express Air Shotgun / Rifle Combo.
First, you may ask, what the heck is an air shotgun. And what does combo mean? Yeah, I had a similar sentiment when I was first introduced to the Viper Express. What I can tell you in unequivocal terms, is that this is not a "real" shotgun. In other words, don't buy this to go duck hunting. Or shoot skeet or trap. There's not enough power, despite Gamo's claim to the contrary. Plus, the shells all use #9 shot, which is like, the smallest and weakest shot you can buy. Add to that that it is air-propelled rather than gunpowder propelled, and you get the point.
The reason why this gun is so attractive is because of its uniqueness, not because of any superior functionality or raw power. I don't want to say that it's not powerful, since it does shoot the #9 shot at 1200FPS (according to Gamo - I haven't put this over a chrony yet) and 850FPS using a .22 caliber pellet. It also does require a firearms licence to purchase (at least in Canada) but compared to a "real" shotgun, there's no contest. I'd say that this gun is good for target shooting and also for pest control, though we're not talking raccoons here, but smaller rodents.
A little about the gun - it's mainly a shotgun that is break-barrel. The functionality of this is quite simple, and is not much different than many other break barrels. With not a whole lot of cocking effort, the shooter would break the barrel (bend it down until it clicks and engages), load in your shotgun shell (which is extremely small - maybe the size of the standard drywall screw plug), pull the barrel back up so it locks in place, release the safety, and then point and shoot (just like a real shotgun, there are no sights - just the bead near the end of the barrel). Once shot, the shell has to be manually removed by breaking the barrel.
It is also a rifle, because the Viper Express comes with a chamber adapter that is the same size as the shotgun shell, but is brass and it allows a .22 caliber pellet to fit into it. Loading and shooting is the same except that there is no shell to remove.
The gun is about 37-40" or so in length, including the barrel (I don't have the specs in front of me so my number may be a bit off). It is not that heavy. Most of the gun is made of a grey plastic compound. There are checkered grips on the gun, for the shooter to be able to hold it comfortably. In fact, the colour and the rubber grips are pretty much the only thing that distinguishes the Viper Express from the Viper Shadow (which is about $50.00 cheaper, but also looks considerably cheaper). Both models feature a vented rib barrel, which looks cool, but serves absolutely no purpose, since there's no way the barrel will ever get hot enough to vent fumes or gas. Also, while the external diameter of the barrel does make it look like a real shotgun barrel (at least from the side), looking from the front, you'll see that obviously the opening is much smaller than the side profile would suggest.
The safety is in front of the trigger and is easy to use. It comes also with mounting rail slats so you can choose to attach any number of optional optics to it, if you wish.
Because it is a break barrel, you obviously do not have to worry about noise - if you've ever heard a shotgun blast before (a real one), it's pretty loud. You'll get more of a "doink" or "chunk" sound coming from this for the #9 shot, and a slighly more prounced "thunk" when using pellets.
Now, some pros and cons.
PROS:
1. Good construction. I remember handling this the first time I saw this in the gunstore and I thought, "feels great". Not too heavy, not too light. Rubber checkering on grip areas are well thought out and feel excellent to the shooter - it just feels solid.
2. Innovative product. Sure, it may not be able to be best-in-class for either air shotgun or air rifle, the fact that Gamo took the risk in producing a combo gun, should be applauded.
3. Great alternative to a "real shotgun". Sometimes you just need a gun that you don't have to aim and sight in. Perhaps you are in an area where you will be in severe crap if the neighbours hear anything resembling a firearm going off, but you need to take care of some pest control or want to hunt some small game (like smaller birds, squirrels, etc.). This is a good choice that will likely not result in the cops being called.
CONS:
1. In order to facilitate the ability to shoot shot out of this gun, the barrel is, to no one's surprise, smoothbore. However, the decision to make this a combo gun is a poor one, based on the smoothbore. Without a rifled barrel, your .22 caliber pellet ain't going to shoot very straight, or achieve much accuracy. Maybe close distances are fine, but that sort of defeats the whole purpose of a rifle, doesn't it? Anyhow, even though I have the chamber adapter, I never use it - just keep it as a shotgun.
2. The air shotgun ammo is expensive and cannot be found anywhere...and from what I can gather, it only comes from Gamo. I made the decision, even before I bought the Viper Express, to stock up on the shells, since I knew I'd be buying it at some point. At around $7-$8 for a box of 25 or so, that's not a great deal. Now, I know what you'll tell me - I can go out and buy a box of 25 Winchester AA 20 ga. shells for the same price, but remember, you are getting very little shot here in a much smaller package. And while it is technically possible to be able to reload the plastic shells, it is not like the usefulness of spent 12 or 20 ga. shells that can easily be reloaded and re-crimped. Plus, if Gamo ever discontinues the ammo, you're now stuck with this as a crappy .22 caliber inaccurate rifle.
3. It is either discontinued, about to be discontinued, or is not selling well. As a result, you'd be hard pressed to find too many gun shops that carry this.
All that being said, I am pleased to have purchased this. It is a unique product that will turn heads, but also has some limited use as a pest control gun (I use it as neither - for me, it's more of a novelty, albeit an expensive one). I would have perhaps put some wood into it, so it doesn't look 100% synthetic, or design it so that it has interchangeable barrels - this would make this a more attractive option as a rifle.
First, you may ask, what the heck is an air shotgun. And what does combo mean? Yeah, I had a similar sentiment when I was first introduced to the Viper Express. What I can tell you in unequivocal terms, is that this is not a "real" shotgun. In other words, don't buy this to go duck hunting. Or shoot skeet or trap. There's not enough power, despite Gamo's claim to the contrary. Plus, the shells all use #9 shot, which is like, the smallest and weakest shot you can buy. Add to that that it is air-propelled rather than gunpowder propelled, and you get the point.
The reason why this gun is so attractive is because of its uniqueness, not because of any superior functionality or raw power. I don't want to say that it's not powerful, since it does shoot the #9 shot at 1200FPS (according to Gamo - I haven't put this over a chrony yet) and 850FPS using a .22 caliber pellet. It also does require a firearms licence to purchase (at least in Canada) but compared to a "real" shotgun, there's no contest. I'd say that this gun is good for target shooting and also for pest control, though we're not talking raccoons here, but smaller rodents.
A little about the gun - it's mainly a shotgun that is break-barrel. The functionality of this is quite simple, and is not much different than many other break barrels. With not a whole lot of cocking effort, the shooter would break the barrel (bend it down until it clicks and engages), load in your shotgun shell (which is extremely small - maybe the size of the standard drywall screw plug), pull the barrel back up so it locks in place, release the safety, and then point and shoot (just like a real shotgun, there are no sights - just the bead near the end of the barrel). Once shot, the shell has to be manually removed by breaking the barrel.
It is also a rifle, because the Viper Express comes with a chamber adapter that is the same size as the shotgun shell, but is brass and it allows a .22 caliber pellet to fit into it. Loading and shooting is the same except that there is no shell to remove.
The gun is about 37-40" or so in length, including the barrel (I don't have the specs in front of me so my number may be a bit off). It is not that heavy. Most of the gun is made of a grey plastic compound. There are checkered grips on the gun, for the shooter to be able to hold it comfortably. In fact, the colour and the rubber grips are pretty much the only thing that distinguishes the Viper Express from the Viper Shadow (which is about $50.00 cheaper, but also looks considerably cheaper). Both models feature a vented rib barrel, which looks cool, but serves absolutely no purpose, since there's no way the barrel will ever get hot enough to vent fumes or gas. Also, while the external diameter of the barrel does make it look like a real shotgun barrel (at least from the side), looking from the front, you'll see that obviously the opening is much smaller than the side profile would suggest.
The safety is in front of the trigger and is easy to use. It comes also with mounting rail slats so you can choose to attach any number of optional optics to it, if you wish.
Because it is a break barrel, you obviously do not have to worry about noise - if you've ever heard a shotgun blast before (a real one), it's pretty loud. You'll get more of a "doink" or "chunk" sound coming from this for the #9 shot, and a slighly more prounced "thunk" when using pellets.
Now, some pros and cons.
PROS:
1. Good construction. I remember handling this the first time I saw this in the gunstore and I thought, "feels great". Not too heavy, not too light. Rubber checkering on grip areas are well thought out and feel excellent to the shooter - it just feels solid.
2. Innovative product. Sure, it may not be able to be best-in-class for either air shotgun or air rifle, the fact that Gamo took the risk in producing a combo gun, should be applauded.
3. Great alternative to a "real shotgun". Sometimes you just need a gun that you don't have to aim and sight in. Perhaps you are in an area where you will be in severe crap if the neighbours hear anything resembling a firearm going off, but you need to take care of some pest control or want to hunt some small game (like smaller birds, squirrels, etc.). This is a good choice that will likely not result in the cops being called.
CONS:
1. In order to facilitate the ability to shoot shot out of this gun, the barrel is, to no one's surprise, smoothbore. However, the decision to make this a combo gun is a poor one, based on the smoothbore. Without a rifled barrel, your .22 caliber pellet ain't going to shoot very straight, or achieve much accuracy. Maybe close distances are fine, but that sort of defeats the whole purpose of a rifle, doesn't it? Anyhow, even though I have the chamber adapter, I never use it - just keep it as a shotgun.
2. The air shotgun ammo is expensive and cannot be found anywhere...and from what I can gather, it only comes from Gamo. I made the decision, even before I bought the Viper Express, to stock up on the shells, since I knew I'd be buying it at some point. At around $7-$8 for a box of 25 or so, that's not a great deal. Now, I know what you'll tell me - I can go out and buy a box of 25 Winchester AA 20 ga. shells for the same price, but remember, you are getting very little shot here in a much smaller package. And while it is technically possible to be able to reload the plastic shells, it is not like the usefulness of spent 12 or 20 ga. shells that can easily be reloaded and re-crimped. Plus, if Gamo ever discontinues the ammo, you're now stuck with this as a crappy .22 caliber inaccurate rifle.
3. It is either discontinued, about to be discontinued, or is not selling well. As a result, you'd be hard pressed to find too many gun shops that carry this.
All that being said, I am pleased to have purchased this. It is a unique product that will turn heads, but also has some limited use as a pest control gun (I use it as neither - for me, it's more of a novelty, albeit an expensive one). I would have perhaps put some wood into it, so it doesn't look 100% synthetic, or design it so that it has interchangeable barrels - this would make this a more attractive option as a rifle.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Book Review: The Seven Myths of Gun Control, by Richard Poe
This is a very refreshing book that tackles a taboo issue in society nowadays, particularly given the fact that the culture has generally gravitated towards left-wing politics, and as such more or less embrace gun control. I found Poe's tackling of the issue to be refreshing and much of his supporting evidence to be compelling. The book is easy to read, and may make several people uncomfortable, by virtue of his candidness. This book is not for the politically correct. For pro-gun readers, it helps to buttress their already-held beliefs of responsible gun ownership as a right (well at least in the U.S., I'm in Canada). I really liked how he dissected the race issue - no one wants to discuss the race factor, but let's face it, we all know that some racial communities have more issues with gun crime than others (for what it's worth, this opinion is coming from a me as a minority - Asian).
All that being said, I found several weaknesses in Poe's book. One was his frequent citing of fictitious events and scenarios such as movies to try to buttress his point. Personally, I would have found his arguments even stronger had he injected more real life statistics, rather than cite something from the movies.
Structurally, he either spent way too much time on myth one (which was addressed very well), or not enough time on the others. He does recognize this, but even so, I found that the last two myths seemed to be given just a cursory glance without really delving much into debunking the myth - it was almost as if he had to get the completed book to the publishers by a certain time, and so he simply rushed the last two chapters.
Speaking of structural issues, what is with the countless paragraph headings within each chapter. I think the book would have flowed better had the paragraphs not been so explicitly separated like this. There was negligible effect, if any at all.
Further, I found that fairly frequently, Poe tended to start a discussion, and then move to a tangent and then proceed to spend the rest of the chapter dissecting the tangent (of which the connection to the chapter topic is a stretch at best). To this reader, I got lost trying to figure out whether he needed filler material to fatten up the pages, or whether he needed to get a better editor (or perhaps he simply needed to inject his own opinion and interpretation somewhere).
I found that his often citing websites as supporting documentation to stifle his credibility somewhat. Not sure how you would feel about it, but in my view, given the fact that the premise of the book is to dispel myths (and presumably use solid documented evidence in the process), citing actually published works would lend more of an academic seriousness to his writing, rather than citing websites that I have never heard of, and since anyone can put together a website with questionable data, I am not sure whether it was a wise decision for him to cite online sources by and large.
Finally, I found the epilogue completely unnecessary. Without giving away any of the material, even a casual reader can safely conclude that any questions about whether his biases are injected in the book are answered in the epilogue. While I agree in principle with what he is saying, the connection to gun control myths with the substance in the epilogue is sketchy at best.
However, I still am content to give this a solid four-out-of-five rating. It's just very refreshing to see this topic addressed, and not from a idealistic or psychological angle, but with practical examples and brutally honest arguments. The book is a very easy read, and I'd recommend it to both pro and anti-gun readers to digest. I certainly learned a number of new things from the book, and for me, it provoked much thought about this subject, even though I am on the pro-gun side of the fence.
All that being said, I found several weaknesses in Poe's book. One was his frequent citing of fictitious events and scenarios such as movies to try to buttress his point. Personally, I would have found his arguments even stronger had he injected more real life statistics, rather than cite something from the movies.
Structurally, he either spent way too much time on myth one (which was addressed very well), or not enough time on the others. He does recognize this, but even so, I found that the last two myths seemed to be given just a cursory glance without really delving much into debunking the myth - it was almost as if he had to get the completed book to the publishers by a certain time, and so he simply rushed the last two chapters.
Speaking of structural issues, what is with the countless paragraph headings within each chapter. I think the book would have flowed better had the paragraphs not been so explicitly separated like this. There was negligible effect, if any at all.
Further, I found that fairly frequently, Poe tended to start a discussion, and then move to a tangent and then proceed to spend the rest of the chapter dissecting the tangent (of which the connection to the chapter topic is a stretch at best). To this reader, I got lost trying to figure out whether he needed filler material to fatten up the pages, or whether he needed to get a better editor (or perhaps he simply needed to inject his own opinion and interpretation somewhere).
I found that his often citing websites as supporting documentation to stifle his credibility somewhat. Not sure how you would feel about it, but in my view, given the fact that the premise of the book is to dispel myths (and presumably use solid documented evidence in the process), citing actually published works would lend more of an academic seriousness to his writing, rather than citing websites that I have never heard of, and since anyone can put together a website with questionable data, I am not sure whether it was a wise decision for him to cite online sources by and large.
Finally, I found the epilogue completely unnecessary. Without giving away any of the material, even a casual reader can safely conclude that any questions about whether his biases are injected in the book are answered in the epilogue. While I agree in principle with what he is saying, the connection to gun control myths with the substance in the epilogue is sketchy at best.
However, I still am content to give this a solid four-out-of-five rating. It's just very refreshing to see this topic addressed, and not from a idealistic or psychological angle, but with practical examples and brutally honest arguments. The book is a very easy read, and I'd recommend it to both pro and anti-gun readers to digest. I certainly learned a number of new things from the book, and for me, it provoked much thought about this subject, even though I am on the pro-gun side of the fence.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Firearms For Home Defence Not Really An Option in Canada
I very recently went to the local gunshop to pick up a Savage Arms .22 bolt-action rimfire target rifle (Father's Day present to myself), and ended up having a very informative discussion with a friend in the gunshop, with whom I deal a lot for my purchases. Home defence with firearms is a relatively taboo subject in Canada, given our legislated safe storage laws here, and it's really incredible how many people here who own firearms are mum when it comes to talking about home defence. A very different contrast, compared to our neighbours to the south, who, for the most part, can lean on second amendment rights in their constitution in order to defend their right to use firearms for home defence.
Now, this may be a moot point, given that the rifles that I do have, are used specifically for recreational and competitive target shooting (most are air rifles, anyways), and are not suited for a home defence situation anyway. But in talking with enough people about this, it may be a worthwhile discussion to be had.
What's interesting, that came out of the conversation I had with the fellow, is something that I did not know, which is the legal ramifications of getting caught using a rifle or handgun in a self-defence situation. While I don't need to hash out the arguments for and against various home defence options (just see the previous posts), I will say that just like stringent and restrictive gun laws on the books in Canada already, this is yet another way to handcuff law-abiding gun owners, and force them to rely on the police for their protection (which would be OK if Canada was an actual police state, and if the police actually showed up in decent time when called). Those of us who have had the experience of calling the police to our residence can attest that it may take 10 or 15 minutes for them to arrive. In a live hot burglary situation or a home invasion scenario, we would have been dead by the time they arrived, and their job would have been to play historian, piecing together what happened. But I digress.
What I learned from the gunshop person was this: guns are not discouraged to be used for self-defence purposes in Canada - it is actually illegal to use them for this purpose, although it does not explicitly state that in any law. Just like in the U.K., what was shared with me is the law enforcement's and judicial systems reasoning behind this, and it goes something like this:
In the U.S., firearms for home defence usually entail having a loaded firearm (whether it be a rifle or a handgun) within reach, usually in the sleeping quarters, so that access is quick and easy, should there be an intruder. You can sleep with a loaded gun under your pillow if you like. Now, without sounding like a gun controller, I actually find this to be disturbing, particularly for people who have children in the house, not to mention a number of other factors such as one's state of mind if they are awakened in the middle of the night, in the dark.
I actually do not have a problem with Canada's safe storage laws with firearms. Our friends from the U.S. will argue vehemently against them, but let's consider one thing here. In all the gun safety literature, courses, and disseminated information available to gun owners in the U.S. and Canada, several things are clear. 1) Both the U.S. and Canada have a memorize-able system for gun safety. In the U.S., it's call the ten commandments of gun safety (these are approved/penned by the NRA and Gun Owners of America) and in Canada, it's called the ACTS and PROVE system (provided by the federal government in consultation with prominent gun leaders). Both our countries' gun safety systems have several commonalities: 1) guns are to be locked up when not in use in a place that is not accessible to children 2) the ammo is to be stored and secured separately from the firearms, and 3) unload all guns when not in use or do not load the gun until ready to shoot. In this vein, I think the idea of keeping a loaded gun within easy reach contravenes a lot of these safety standards. Sure, we can teach our kids about gun safety, but what kind of an example is being set when the ten commandments or the ACTS and PROVE system are being taught, yet the parents are not exactly practising what they preach?
Now, this being said, I see the reasoning behind using firearms for self-defence, and in principle I have no problems with it. However, I think that it is a risk worth mitigating by continuing to observe safety practices, even when one's intention is to have firearms for self-defence.
My friend in the gunshop used to live in Chicago, but has been in Canada for the past 24 years or so, mentioned to me that due to the safe storage procedures actually being a part of the firearms laws in Canada (whereas it is more of a recommended practice in the U.S., but you are not legally bound to observe it), anyone who attempts to use a gun for self-defence in the event of a robbery, rape, burglary, etc., will more than likely be charged with failure to properly store a firearm, and subsequently, the person's firearms can be permanently seized by the government. Law enforcement will argue that by virtue of one having a firearm for self-defence, it is by definition within easy reach and loaded. Thus, you are contravening firearms safe storage laws. Moreover, gunshops are generally heavily discouraged (or even prohibited - I'm not sure which) from selling a firearm to an individual who explicitly states that they will use it for home defence.
I think there is a reasonable middle-ground here. It is possible to be able to observe safe storage laws in Canada in keeping firearms for self-defence. For one, a person would have to keep their gun cabinet/safe nearby, but hidden from view and from children. Trigger locks will still need to be in place, and obviously the ammo needs to be stored elsewhere. The obvious downside to this is that instead of taking a few seconds to inform the home invader or rapist that you are armed and point the firearm at them to get them to stop the criminal act, you now have to get the inaccessible key / activate the combination to the safe, get the inaccessible key to the trigger locks/activate the combinations to the same, fish out your ammo from your hidden spot, lock up your cabinet (so that the rest of the firearms are not accessible to the perpetrator), load the firearm, announce to the intruder that they cease and desist, etc. Likely, by that time you may be in a world of hurt, but I suppose that is a TECHNICAL way of still being able to use firearms for self-defence.
Now, the question, I am sure, will be: what would you prefer? a) To break the safe storage laws and increase the risk of children having access to a loaded firearm / increase the risk of a accident with a loaded firearm being so close to oneself while sleeping, b) accept the sheep mentality, observe the safe storage laws and hope that the cops show up on time, or c) observe the safe storage laws, yet be prepared to be able to act quickly to unlock / retrieve everything? I choose C, even though it's not the most ideal scenario. But I'd choose C over A, because I would never keep a loaded gun in the house within easy reach - I am completely against that. Not to mention, if the cops show up and find that you contravened safe storage laws, your weapons will be seized (that I'm sure is not on the forefront of people's thinking), but going to jail as a result is something that I'm not crazy about. I will never accept B as a solution - do you know anyone who will sit idly by and watch their wife or kids be raped, particularly if you know you have the means to stop them? Hoping for the cops to show up is my preferred solution, but I am not that naive to exclude all other possibilities. If it was between option A and B, I would hesitantly choose A, even though I would be breaking the law. Option C makes the most sense to me, even though the person who is in that situation will have a world of explaining to do, but in my view, if you can show that you kept everything locked up until you needed to get everything, the courts may be more sympathetic to you since they will see that you have made all attempts to follow safe storage laws. The other thing to note for option C is that it is important for the person to be able to practice timed exercises so they can be familiar with how long it will take to unlock/retrieve everything. It should be in about a minute; otherwise, the courts will question why you were able to get to everything so easily.
Now, this may be a moot point, given that the rifles that I do have, are used specifically for recreational and competitive target shooting (most are air rifles, anyways), and are not suited for a home defence situation anyway. But in talking with enough people about this, it may be a worthwhile discussion to be had.
What's interesting, that came out of the conversation I had with the fellow, is something that I did not know, which is the legal ramifications of getting caught using a rifle or handgun in a self-defence situation. While I don't need to hash out the arguments for and against various home defence options (just see the previous posts), I will say that just like stringent and restrictive gun laws on the books in Canada already, this is yet another way to handcuff law-abiding gun owners, and force them to rely on the police for their protection (which would be OK if Canada was an actual police state, and if the police actually showed up in decent time when called). Those of us who have had the experience of calling the police to our residence can attest that it may take 10 or 15 minutes for them to arrive. In a live hot burglary situation or a home invasion scenario, we would have been dead by the time they arrived, and their job would have been to play historian, piecing together what happened. But I digress.
What I learned from the gunshop person was this: guns are not discouraged to be used for self-defence purposes in Canada - it is actually illegal to use them for this purpose, although it does not explicitly state that in any law. Just like in the U.K., what was shared with me is the law enforcement's and judicial systems reasoning behind this, and it goes something like this:
In the U.S., firearms for home defence usually entail having a loaded firearm (whether it be a rifle or a handgun) within reach, usually in the sleeping quarters, so that access is quick and easy, should there be an intruder. You can sleep with a loaded gun under your pillow if you like. Now, without sounding like a gun controller, I actually find this to be disturbing, particularly for people who have children in the house, not to mention a number of other factors such as one's state of mind if they are awakened in the middle of the night, in the dark.
I actually do not have a problem with Canada's safe storage laws with firearms. Our friends from the U.S. will argue vehemently against them, but let's consider one thing here. In all the gun safety literature, courses, and disseminated information available to gun owners in the U.S. and Canada, several things are clear. 1) Both the U.S. and Canada have a memorize-able system for gun safety. In the U.S., it's call the ten commandments of gun safety (these are approved/penned by the NRA and Gun Owners of America) and in Canada, it's called the ACTS and PROVE system (provided by the federal government in consultation with prominent gun leaders). Both our countries' gun safety systems have several commonalities: 1) guns are to be locked up when not in use in a place that is not accessible to children 2) the ammo is to be stored and secured separately from the firearms, and 3) unload all guns when not in use or do not load the gun until ready to shoot. In this vein, I think the idea of keeping a loaded gun within easy reach contravenes a lot of these safety standards. Sure, we can teach our kids about gun safety, but what kind of an example is being set when the ten commandments or the ACTS and PROVE system are being taught, yet the parents are not exactly practising what they preach?
Now, this being said, I see the reasoning behind using firearms for self-defence, and in principle I have no problems with it. However, I think that it is a risk worth mitigating by continuing to observe safety practices, even when one's intention is to have firearms for self-defence.
My friend in the gunshop used to live in Chicago, but has been in Canada for the past 24 years or so, mentioned to me that due to the safe storage procedures actually being a part of the firearms laws in Canada (whereas it is more of a recommended practice in the U.S., but you are not legally bound to observe it), anyone who attempts to use a gun for self-defence in the event of a robbery, rape, burglary, etc., will more than likely be charged with failure to properly store a firearm, and subsequently, the person's firearms can be permanently seized by the government. Law enforcement will argue that by virtue of one having a firearm for self-defence, it is by definition within easy reach and loaded. Thus, you are contravening firearms safe storage laws. Moreover, gunshops are generally heavily discouraged (or even prohibited - I'm not sure which) from selling a firearm to an individual who explicitly states that they will use it for home defence.
I think there is a reasonable middle-ground here. It is possible to be able to observe safe storage laws in Canada in keeping firearms for self-defence. For one, a person would have to keep their gun cabinet/safe nearby, but hidden from view and from children. Trigger locks will still need to be in place, and obviously the ammo needs to be stored elsewhere. The obvious downside to this is that instead of taking a few seconds to inform the home invader or rapist that you are armed and point the firearm at them to get them to stop the criminal act, you now have to get the inaccessible key / activate the combination to the safe, get the inaccessible key to the trigger locks/activate the combinations to the same, fish out your ammo from your hidden spot, lock up your cabinet (so that the rest of the firearms are not accessible to the perpetrator), load the firearm, announce to the intruder that they cease and desist, etc. Likely, by that time you may be in a world of hurt, but I suppose that is a TECHNICAL way of still being able to use firearms for self-defence.
Now, the question, I am sure, will be: what would you prefer? a) To break the safe storage laws and increase the risk of children having access to a loaded firearm / increase the risk of a accident with a loaded firearm being so close to oneself while sleeping, b) accept the sheep mentality, observe the safe storage laws and hope that the cops show up on time, or c) observe the safe storage laws, yet be prepared to be able to act quickly to unlock / retrieve everything? I choose C, even though it's not the most ideal scenario. But I'd choose C over A, because I would never keep a loaded gun in the house within easy reach - I am completely against that. Not to mention, if the cops show up and find that you contravened safe storage laws, your weapons will be seized (that I'm sure is not on the forefront of people's thinking), but going to jail as a result is something that I'm not crazy about. I will never accept B as a solution - do you know anyone who will sit idly by and watch their wife or kids be raped, particularly if you know you have the means to stop them? Hoping for the cops to show up is my preferred solution, but I am not that naive to exclude all other possibilities. If it was between option A and B, I would hesitantly choose A, even though I would be breaking the law. Option C makes the most sense to me, even though the person who is in that situation will have a world of explaining to do, but in my view, if you can show that you kept everything locked up until you needed to get everything, the courts may be more sympathetic to you since they will see that you have made all attempts to follow safe storage laws. The other thing to note for option C is that it is important for the person to be able to practice timed exercises so they can be familiar with how long it will take to unlock/retrieve everything. It should be in about a minute; otherwise, the courts will question why you were able to get to everything so easily.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Self-Defence / Home Defence - A Response
After my last post on home defence options, I received three emails that had opposing positions. Two of the respondents questioned whether I was being way too paranoid - after all, we do live in Canada, while the other emailer was nothing short of what I would consider a trigger-happy individual, who seemed to be relishing the opportunity to shoot someone. I certainly hope that that was not the impression my post relayed - it was not my intention, and I think that only the most liberal interpretation of my post would signify that. Anyway, while I could have simply responded to the three commenters by email, I thought it would be more beneficial to address the issues raised by another post. It would also help me to formulate and perhaps cement my own positions on these areas. I won't bother rehashing the previous post found here
but rather, I want to look at some of the resulting opinions.
First, let's look at the paranoia argument, since 2 of the 3 emails said that I was being a bit too paranoid. The two folks who wrote me about this were in essence arguing several things, which I will briefly try to summarize here:
1) this is Canada, supposedly a much more peaceful country and gun culture is not as ingrained here as it is in the U.S., where their Constitution not only assures them, but guarantees them the right to bear arms. The "Castle Doctrine" (essentially a British concept that says that one's home is their castle and as such, if their personal living space is breached, one has the right to defend it, even using lethal force to do so. The Castle Doctrine is highly ingrained in U.S. thinking about personal property and such; not so much in Canada.
OK, I can appreciate this point. However, I would contend that it would be fairly naive for us as Canadians to assume that we are subject to a different degree of crime here; that somehow level and nature of crime does not justify using lethal force. There have been enough cases of heinous crimes in Canada to make me realize that our country is not that much different than our U.S. neighbours. Sure, we don't have the crime-ridden ghettos that they do, but in the big cities in Canada, they are there and home invasions, break-ins, and burglaries are more than commonplace. Even in the suberbs, where supposedly it is "safe" and a false sense of security is established, murders and robberies do happen, and they are increasing in frequency once criminals realize that those living in the burbs are not exactly living on welfare. Plus, my viewpoint has always been that as long as there are humans there, the potential for crime will always be there. Don't think that all the crimes are committed by rough looking gang-bangers. That assumption has led many a person to be shocked to find that their investment banker neighbour who is a father of four is actually a pedophile behind closed doors.
2) Is lethal force really necessary? Can't you just incapacitate the intruder? What about the psychological and legal fallouts?
Is lethal force necessary? You tell me - I don't presume to know your situation. I can tell you that I'd consider it an absolute last resort. In fact, I hope I never come across this situation. But I can say one thing that I've resolved in my own mind. I would not resort to lethal force unless my life or the life of my family was in danger. Some gun nuts have put lethal force as their primary response, and I think there's a real danager in that - for one, it reveals to me a trigger-happy attitude, and a lack of value for life. Also, the typical blase response regarding lethal force being a primary response would indicate that they haven't really thought it through, but rather have been watching too many violent movies. Anyway, if I came home and found dude ransacking my house and taking my meager possessions off my property, I'd call the cops, but in no way would I confront them with legal force. Truth be told, I'm not all that attached to material things. However, a cold burglary is far different than a live home invasion, as I have discovered in researching this topic. Burglaries generally involve one criminal, who will break into your house when you are not there (generally daytime or when they know you are on vacation or away - they are after your stuff and generally have no intention of hurting you). Home invasions, on the other hand, are usually committed by several criminals, who are more than likely armed, and the intent is not so much to steal your possessions as it is to terrorize you in one of many ways. It could involve kidnapping, but in many cases it involves rape, sexual assault, and murder.
Now, that being said, if you advocate a wait and see approach, and I tend to agree in principle, although probably not in practice, what would happen if you assume the best, that it they just want your stuff, but they are intent on breaking in and raping your wife, or your kids? What are you going to do when you are tied by and beaten silly, if not killed, while your family is at the mercy of these animals? And, by the way, you do have your taser or firearm or bear spray, but it's not exactly within reach since you assumed you'll never need it? Not sure if the tradeoff of your life or the life or your loved ones is worth the risk of not being prepared. Something to think about.
Now, consider this. Obviously, no one wants to kill anybody, if they can help it. But let's consider the alternatives here. Incapacitating a criminal is fine...if there is only one of them, and you know how to properly do it. What if, in the case of a home invasion, there are a group of them? Are you seriously planning to give each of them a whack with your baseball bat or golf club? Or taser? Even if you have a knife, you'd have to get in close to do damage - are you trained for that? The odds are against you if it's you against a group. What if they are armed? Your baseball bat will do little. And if you spray your bear spray on one of them and he is down, you can be sure his buddies will be pretty pissed and will pummel you to death if you run out of bear spray (which you will).
The psychological and legal effects. This is a real concern, particularly for those of us who live in Canada, which, for all intents and purposes, is not a gun-friendly country. I recently was corresponding with someone on a forum who experienced a home invasion and he wrote that while he and his brother were able to take down the intruder and hold him for the police to arrive, in the end, both him and his brother were charged with aggravated assault and were treated like criminals, even though it was the home invader who should have received all of the punishment. Unfortunately, that does not surprise me about the lenient and very liberal Canadian justice system. Anyhow, yes, you will have to be prepared to deal with the fallout. As for the psychological effects - I've never been there so I can't say (and hopefully never have to be tehre), but let's face it, when snipers take out a criminal or a soldier takes out an enemy, they receive heavy psychological counselling afterwards. I guess if I were to say anything, it would be that because my sole criteria in using lethal force is if my life or the life of my family was threatened, I can definitively conclude afterwards that I exhausted all my other options.
3) Why not set up an alarm system? Or call the cops? Or get a dog?
This is a multi-part question, which I've happened to condense into one summary question. Getting a dog is one of the options I propose. Now, I know that animal lovers out there may take especial exception with my using a dog for utilitarian purposes; but be that as it may, I don't think pet owners own their pets for no reason. Most want a pet for companionship, others want a pet to keep up with others who also have a pet, others use pets to help them get around (ie. guide dogs for the blind), while others will have a pet (a dog, in particular) to give them a sense of security. I don't have a problem with this, so if you do, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Anyway, a dog is great in terms of both a deterrent and an actual self-defence tool. If you are edgy about potentially shooting someone or whacking them with a baseball bat, a dog is your answer.
The other parts of the question. Alarm systems. They are OK, and generally are a deterrent to a criminal (either the criminal will be discouraged by the alarm system and will hit another house, or will try twice as hard to defeat it, thinking that the alarm is guarding something valuable). However, I have learned to not rely on an alarm system, even though I have one. For one, phone lines can always be cut. That is major downside of phone-line based alerting (unless the alarm company by default sends the cops to your house if the phone line signal is breached - I don't know any who do that). Second, alarm companies make mistakes too. Most times that I have had a false alarm, the cops show up (that's what I pay them separately for, as part of my alarm package). Once or twice, however, the cops do not show up, even though my alarm was wailing for quite a while. The alarm company doesn't even call me. That has been the exception, but you don't want to be in an exception situation during a home invasion and learn the hard way.
The cops. Yes, calling them is fine, assuming they respond quickly (in 2005, when the schitzophrenic lady showed up at my door one evening on a Saturday, it took the cops 5-7 minutes to show up - if she was armed, I would have been dead by then). If guys are about to kick down your door with weapons in hand, you'll be dead by the time the cops show up. And not to mention my previous point about the phone lines being cut. OK, so most people have cell phones. Most, but not all. And even if you do, your cell phone's battery or signal can die at the most inopportune time (trust me, it's happened to me). I guess what I am saying is that while it's nice to have that peripheral service available, it should not be relied upon as the sole first response. It should be in conjuction with an overall home defence plan.
Now, even if the cops show up - then what? What would the intruder get? In Canada, it'd be a slap on the wrist (in Canada, the maximum sentence you can get for cold blooded murder is 25 years, but you can be let out early for good behaviour). With Canada's "catch and release" type of revolving door justice, your home invader will be out in no time, and guess who he will be gunning for first, since you were the one who put him there? You'd be living in fear for the rest of your life, or who have to move to an undisclosed new location?
4) Fear begets fear. You are contributing to a non-trusting society.
That is fine, since I don't trust society anyways. It is way too idealistic to think that nothing bad will happen to you in your lifetime. Even if you are a person who trusts that God will protect you, God has also given you a brain. If you have life insurance or wear a lifejacket when boating, it is not a mistrust in God that allows you to do these things, but it is utilizing the sense or common sense that He gave you, since He did not make you to be a robot. As for fear - it would be rather naive to think that the world has become a better, safer place than it was 50 years ago. I remember my sister telling me 15 years ago or so that she was home from school one day, not feeling that great. So she lay in bed to rest in the afternoon, and was all by herself. She heard the front door knob jiggle. My Mom and Dad were both confirmed to be at work, and my brother and I were both confirmed in school. Any one of our friends would not jiggle our doorknob (they would ring the doorbell). My sister told me that the doorknob was turned and then jiggled and then it sounded like something (a key or perhaps a pick) was inserted into it and jiggled again. She was petrified. If that had been my Mom, she would have been hiding in a corner. I don't forget stuff like that, nor do I forget things like my garage door being ajar or open even though we're not home...and my wife and I didn't open it. I take a lot of precautions now when I get home at night, even though I have a motion sensor alarm in my residence. I sweep the house normally and have my hand on my Buck hunting knife that I conceal on me at all times. As the old saying goes, I'd rather be prepared and never have to use my planned response, than to need to respond appropriately but I am grossly unprepared. People can call me paranoid or whatever, but if it keeps me alive and not at the mercy of some punk intending to cause me harm, so be it.
Now, let's turn our attention to the respondent who I found to be a bit too trigger happy. His/her response disturbs me far greater than the other two who thought I was overthinking these things. I'll now address his/her views in order:
1) Once an invader gets into your home, they have forfeited their right to live.
I don't agree with this in full. Again, I make a distinction in terms of why they are in my house. If they broke in when I wasn't here, and I arrive to find them moving my printer to their van, I'll call the cops but if I had lethal means at my disposal, I won't use it unless they threaten my life. I think it's a shame to automatically assume you'll pull the trigger for anyone unwanted who comes into the door. However, I understand the reasoning behind this, and like I said, in a home invasion, you won't have that luxury of careful deliberation insofar as the motives of the criminals. However, if I think much discretion needs to be taken. I'd much rather call the cops from a neighbour's home and observe the licence plate or details of the robber, rather than confront him/her. If it's a home invasion and my sense is that I will need to grab a firearm, I'd rather shoo them away with it or hold them until the cops show up (but this also introduces further complications, not the least of which is the fact that you may be setting up a return engagement once they get out from behind bars, which inevitably happens in Canada).
2) Shoot to kill, don't shoot to wound.
Again, I disagree in part with this. First, any jury (especially in Canada) who hears you talking about shooting to kill, will no doubt brand you a gun-toting, trigger happy crack-head. I can't say that I would disagree with the assessment. Shooting someone should always be a last resort, and one which is taken after all avenues are exhausted. At the very least, your goal should be to shoot to stop the attacker. If that ends up killing him/her, well, you'll need to deal with that.
I also want to (slightly) revisit the whole wounding vs. killing thing. Most home defence "experts" will say to use ammo which is graded to penetrate into the perpetrator's vital organs. Which is why birdshot and a shotgun is considered ineffective, as its penetration is not as deep (it is used to shoot birds, after all). If nothing else, you'll leave a grievous wound, to which the perp may succumb later...or not. Large buckshot will penetrate organs and likely kill the attacker. Wounding may come back to haunt onself later, if the liberal court system puts that wounded criminal on the stand to talk about his life of suffering. But I think that once you are seriously wounded, you probably will steer away from home invasions in the future. Plus, if the criminal turns his/her life around as a result (which has happened), you'll be glad you didn't kill them. You can always take out their knees or something so at the very least, you'll know you are not taking their life, but they will not be able to perform any more invasions, even after they are released, as they will be.
3) Forget guns - use your whole arsenal against the (expletives) - throw IEDs, grenades, blow them to pieces.
I think a person who thinks like this should lay off the video games and / or the violent TV shows. Sounds to me that someone wants to kill for killing's sake. If this person has a firearms licence, it should be revoked. And maybe they need to be psychiatrically evaluated. It's as if they take great pleasure in seeing a human blown to bits. There's nothing glorifying, heroic or justifiable in that, in my opinon. That's all I'll say to that.
but rather, I want to look at some of the resulting opinions.
First, let's look at the paranoia argument, since 2 of the 3 emails said that I was being a bit too paranoid. The two folks who wrote me about this were in essence arguing several things, which I will briefly try to summarize here:
1) this is Canada, supposedly a much more peaceful country and gun culture is not as ingrained here as it is in the U.S., where their Constitution not only assures them, but guarantees them the right to bear arms. The "Castle Doctrine" (essentially a British concept that says that one's home is their castle and as such, if their personal living space is breached, one has the right to defend it, even using lethal force to do so. The Castle Doctrine is highly ingrained in U.S. thinking about personal property and such; not so much in Canada.
OK, I can appreciate this point. However, I would contend that it would be fairly naive for us as Canadians to assume that we are subject to a different degree of crime here; that somehow level and nature of crime does not justify using lethal force. There have been enough cases of heinous crimes in Canada to make me realize that our country is not that much different than our U.S. neighbours. Sure, we don't have the crime-ridden ghettos that they do, but in the big cities in Canada, they are there and home invasions, break-ins, and burglaries are more than commonplace. Even in the suberbs, where supposedly it is "safe" and a false sense of security is established, murders and robberies do happen, and they are increasing in frequency once criminals realize that those living in the burbs are not exactly living on welfare. Plus, my viewpoint has always been that as long as there are humans there, the potential for crime will always be there. Don't think that all the crimes are committed by rough looking gang-bangers. That assumption has led many a person to be shocked to find that their investment banker neighbour who is a father of four is actually a pedophile behind closed doors.
2) Is lethal force really necessary? Can't you just incapacitate the intruder? What about the psychological and legal fallouts?
Is lethal force necessary? You tell me - I don't presume to know your situation. I can tell you that I'd consider it an absolute last resort. In fact, I hope I never come across this situation. But I can say one thing that I've resolved in my own mind. I would not resort to lethal force unless my life or the life of my family was in danger. Some gun nuts have put lethal force as their primary response, and I think there's a real danager in that - for one, it reveals to me a trigger-happy attitude, and a lack of value for life. Also, the typical blase response regarding lethal force being a primary response would indicate that they haven't really thought it through, but rather have been watching too many violent movies. Anyway, if I came home and found dude ransacking my house and taking my meager possessions off my property, I'd call the cops, but in no way would I confront them with legal force. Truth be told, I'm not all that attached to material things. However, a cold burglary is far different than a live home invasion, as I have discovered in researching this topic. Burglaries generally involve one criminal, who will break into your house when you are not there (generally daytime or when they know you are on vacation or away - they are after your stuff and generally have no intention of hurting you). Home invasions, on the other hand, are usually committed by several criminals, who are more than likely armed, and the intent is not so much to steal your possessions as it is to terrorize you in one of many ways. It could involve kidnapping, but in many cases it involves rape, sexual assault, and murder.
Now, that being said, if you advocate a wait and see approach, and I tend to agree in principle, although probably not in practice, what would happen if you assume the best, that it they just want your stuff, but they are intent on breaking in and raping your wife, or your kids? What are you going to do when you are tied by and beaten silly, if not killed, while your family is at the mercy of these animals? And, by the way, you do have your taser or firearm or bear spray, but it's not exactly within reach since you assumed you'll never need it? Not sure if the tradeoff of your life or the life or your loved ones is worth the risk of not being prepared. Something to think about.
Now, consider this. Obviously, no one wants to kill anybody, if they can help it. But let's consider the alternatives here. Incapacitating a criminal is fine...if there is only one of them, and you know how to properly do it. What if, in the case of a home invasion, there are a group of them? Are you seriously planning to give each of them a whack with your baseball bat or golf club? Or taser? Even if you have a knife, you'd have to get in close to do damage - are you trained for that? The odds are against you if it's you against a group. What if they are armed? Your baseball bat will do little. And if you spray your bear spray on one of them and he is down, you can be sure his buddies will be pretty pissed and will pummel you to death if you run out of bear spray (which you will).
The psychological and legal effects. This is a real concern, particularly for those of us who live in Canada, which, for all intents and purposes, is not a gun-friendly country. I recently was corresponding with someone on a forum who experienced a home invasion and he wrote that while he and his brother were able to take down the intruder and hold him for the police to arrive, in the end, both him and his brother were charged with aggravated assault and were treated like criminals, even though it was the home invader who should have received all of the punishment. Unfortunately, that does not surprise me about the lenient and very liberal Canadian justice system. Anyhow, yes, you will have to be prepared to deal with the fallout. As for the psychological effects - I've never been there so I can't say (and hopefully never have to be tehre), but let's face it, when snipers take out a criminal or a soldier takes out an enemy, they receive heavy psychological counselling afterwards. I guess if I were to say anything, it would be that because my sole criteria in using lethal force is if my life or the life of my family was threatened, I can definitively conclude afterwards that I exhausted all my other options.
3) Why not set up an alarm system? Or call the cops? Or get a dog?
This is a multi-part question, which I've happened to condense into one summary question. Getting a dog is one of the options I propose. Now, I know that animal lovers out there may take especial exception with my using a dog for utilitarian purposes; but be that as it may, I don't think pet owners own their pets for no reason. Most want a pet for companionship, others want a pet to keep up with others who also have a pet, others use pets to help them get around (ie. guide dogs for the blind), while others will have a pet (a dog, in particular) to give them a sense of security. I don't have a problem with this, so if you do, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Anyway, a dog is great in terms of both a deterrent and an actual self-defence tool. If you are edgy about potentially shooting someone or whacking them with a baseball bat, a dog is your answer.
The other parts of the question. Alarm systems. They are OK, and generally are a deterrent to a criminal (either the criminal will be discouraged by the alarm system and will hit another house, or will try twice as hard to defeat it, thinking that the alarm is guarding something valuable). However, I have learned to not rely on an alarm system, even though I have one. For one, phone lines can always be cut. That is major downside of phone-line based alerting (unless the alarm company by default sends the cops to your house if the phone line signal is breached - I don't know any who do that). Second, alarm companies make mistakes too. Most times that I have had a false alarm, the cops show up (that's what I pay them separately for, as part of my alarm package). Once or twice, however, the cops do not show up, even though my alarm was wailing for quite a while. The alarm company doesn't even call me. That has been the exception, but you don't want to be in an exception situation during a home invasion and learn the hard way.
The cops. Yes, calling them is fine, assuming they respond quickly (in 2005, when the schitzophrenic lady showed up at my door one evening on a Saturday, it took the cops 5-7 minutes to show up - if she was armed, I would have been dead by then). If guys are about to kick down your door with weapons in hand, you'll be dead by the time the cops show up. And not to mention my previous point about the phone lines being cut. OK, so most people have cell phones. Most, but not all. And even if you do, your cell phone's battery or signal can die at the most inopportune time (trust me, it's happened to me). I guess what I am saying is that while it's nice to have that peripheral service available, it should not be relied upon as the sole first response. It should be in conjuction with an overall home defence plan.
Now, even if the cops show up - then what? What would the intruder get? In Canada, it'd be a slap on the wrist (in Canada, the maximum sentence you can get for cold blooded murder is 25 years, but you can be let out early for good behaviour). With Canada's "catch and release" type of revolving door justice, your home invader will be out in no time, and guess who he will be gunning for first, since you were the one who put him there? You'd be living in fear for the rest of your life, or who have to move to an undisclosed new location?
4) Fear begets fear. You are contributing to a non-trusting society.
That is fine, since I don't trust society anyways. It is way too idealistic to think that nothing bad will happen to you in your lifetime. Even if you are a person who trusts that God will protect you, God has also given you a brain. If you have life insurance or wear a lifejacket when boating, it is not a mistrust in God that allows you to do these things, but it is utilizing the sense or common sense that He gave you, since He did not make you to be a robot. As for fear - it would be rather naive to think that the world has become a better, safer place than it was 50 years ago. I remember my sister telling me 15 years ago or so that she was home from school one day, not feeling that great. So she lay in bed to rest in the afternoon, and was all by herself. She heard the front door knob jiggle. My Mom and Dad were both confirmed to be at work, and my brother and I were both confirmed in school. Any one of our friends would not jiggle our doorknob (they would ring the doorbell). My sister told me that the doorknob was turned and then jiggled and then it sounded like something (a key or perhaps a pick) was inserted into it and jiggled again. She was petrified. If that had been my Mom, she would have been hiding in a corner. I don't forget stuff like that, nor do I forget things like my garage door being ajar or open even though we're not home...and my wife and I didn't open it. I take a lot of precautions now when I get home at night, even though I have a motion sensor alarm in my residence. I sweep the house normally and have my hand on my Buck hunting knife that I conceal on me at all times. As the old saying goes, I'd rather be prepared and never have to use my planned response, than to need to respond appropriately but I am grossly unprepared. People can call me paranoid or whatever, but if it keeps me alive and not at the mercy of some punk intending to cause me harm, so be it.
Now, let's turn our attention to the respondent who I found to be a bit too trigger happy. His/her response disturbs me far greater than the other two who thought I was overthinking these things. I'll now address his/her views in order:
1) Once an invader gets into your home, they have forfeited their right to live.
I don't agree with this in full. Again, I make a distinction in terms of why they are in my house. If they broke in when I wasn't here, and I arrive to find them moving my printer to their van, I'll call the cops but if I had lethal means at my disposal, I won't use it unless they threaten my life. I think it's a shame to automatically assume you'll pull the trigger for anyone unwanted who comes into the door. However, I understand the reasoning behind this, and like I said, in a home invasion, you won't have that luxury of careful deliberation insofar as the motives of the criminals. However, if I think much discretion needs to be taken. I'd much rather call the cops from a neighbour's home and observe the licence plate or details of the robber, rather than confront him/her. If it's a home invasion and my sense is that I will need to grab a firearm, I'd rather shoo them away with it or hold them until the cops show up (but this also introduces further complications, not the least of which is the fact that you may be setting up a return engagement once they get out from behind bars, which inevitably happens in Canada).
2) Shoot to kill, don't shoot to wound.
Again, I disagree in part with this. First, any jury (especially in Canada) who hears you talking about shooting to kill, will no doubt brand you a gun-toting, trigger happy crack-head. I can't say that I would disagree with the assessment. Shooting someone should always be a last resort, and one which is taken after all avenues are exhausted. At the very least, your goal should be to shoot to stop the attacker. If that ends up killing him/her, well, you'll need to deal with that.
I also want to (slightly) revisit the whole wounding vs. killing thing. Most home defence "experts" will say to use ammo which is graded to penetrate into the perpetrator's vital organs. Which is why birdshot and a shotgun is considered ineffective, as its penetration is not as deep (it is used to shoot birds, after all). If nothing else, you'll leave a grievous wound, to which the perp may succumb later...or not. Large buckshot will penetrate organs and likely kill the attacker. Wounding may come back to haunt onself later, if the liberal court system puts that wounded criminal on the stand to talk about his life of suffering. But I think that once you are seriously wounded, you probably will steer away from home invasions in the future. Plus, if the criminal turns his/her life around as a result (which has happened), you'll be glad you didn't kill them. You can always take out their knees or something so at the very least, you'll know you are not taking their life, but they will not be able to perform any more invasions, even after they are released, as they will be.
3) Forget guns - use your whole arsenal against the (expletives) - throw IEDs, grenades, blow them to pieces.
I think a person who thinks like this should lay off the video games and / or the violent TV shows. Sounds to me that someone wants to kill for killing's sake. If this person has a firearms licence, it should be revoked. And maybe they need to be psychiatrically evaluated. It's as if they take great pleasure in seeing a human blown to bits. There's nothing glorifying, heroic or justifiable in that, in my opinon. That's all I'll say to that.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Getting a Firearms Licence (P.A.L.) in Canada
A lot has changed in the past ten years in terms of how one acquires firearms in Canada. Now, irrespective of you gun politics and what you think of this, it now requires a bit more work in order to get a licence to possess and acquire firearms. In the old days, you'd just need to drop by a police station to get the application form for the Firearms Acquisition Certificate, or F.A.C. Send it in, along with a fee, and once they do a background check on you in sufficient time, they will issue you a F.A.C. The F.A.C. was not needed to possess firearms, just acquire them. Technically, you could have had a Posession Only Licence (P.O.L.) which allowed you to keep the firearms you already had, but not get any more. Ammunition back then did not require a firearms licence, but rather, you just needed to be over 18 and show a valid driver's licence.
In 1998, the Chretien Liberals scrapped that and replaced it with a licence called a Possession and Acquisition Licence (P.A.L.), which is not as easy to get. Now, you are required to pass two exams (one written, the other practical - which involved actually handling firearms) for the Canadian Firearms Security Course. Then comes the application itself which you require your spouse to sign off on, two references, a photo, etc. It is also a long wait to get your licence, since there are mandatory waiting periods. Also, there are different licences that you can get: the common non-restricted P.A.L. is for long guns: essentially rifles and shotguns. The restricted P.A.L. is primarily for handguns (some rifles apply to this - there are some measurement details). There is also a licence to acquire/possess prohibited weapons, but that is next to impossible to get, and the Canadian government have only issued a handful of those. Further, there are other licences you can get, like the Minor's Licence, which allows those 12-17 to use firearms as long as they are in immediate direct supervision of a person legally licenced to possess and use the firearms that the minor is using. And there are some other stipulations and / or exceptions for those who hunt to sustain their families (ie. Aboriginals on a reserve, etc.). The Possession-Only Licence was scrapped in 2001, so that is no longer obtainable, unless you are renewing an existing one.
Why was I considering getting a P.A.L.? As an avid recreational airgun shooter, I was quite happy at the selection of under 500FPS pistols and rifles that were available. Airgunning has grown in popularity and there are shooting clubs which are more or less for airgunners (I am a member of one here in the Toronto area). Still, there is an entire class of airguns which require a firearms licence - because they exceed the Canadian government's criteria of exceeding 500FPS velocity and exceeding 4.2 FPE (foot pounds energy) - as such, these primarily air rifles are classified as firearms and require a P.A.L. to purchase. That being said, right now the highest velocity air rifle shoots at around 1600FPS velocity (not sure of the FPE on that) with a special .177 caliber alloy pellet. Most P.A.L. rated air rifles will shoot between 700-1000 FPS. Consider that your average centerfire cartridge yields over 3500 FPS velocity and well over 1000 FPE, you can see that side by side, the most powerful air rifle still cannot hold a candle to its gunpowder-based comrades. Essentially that is why I originally chose and continue to choose airguns to shoot. I've been to several shooting ranges and while under 500 FPS airguns work at ranges which have its targets at 20 yards, you lose performance very quickly when shooting at the professional grade shooting facilities, built for centerfire rifles and handguns, which has the target around 50-100+ yards away. As such, I thought it would be good for me to get my P.A.L. in order to acquire better performing airguns (and one of the few air shotguns out there requires a P.A.L. - my local gunshop has this on hold for me).
Of course, I consulted with my wife first, who is not a firearms afficianado per se, but recognized my serious interest in sport shooting. She was more than happy to OK my request to attend the Canadian Firearms Safety Course one weekend, and was also OK that I applied for a firearms licence, since she knew why I was doing so. At the course, a few people looked at me strange, since most of them were getting their P.A.L. because they wanted to hunt, or because their job/vocation called for them to obtain a P.A.L. (ie. security guard or police officer). I simply want to be able to get better airguns - I have no interest in hunting - never have, never will, as long as I can buy my food at the grocery store (I'll let someone else deal with the mess in the slaughter house). Besides, I don't like the gamey taste of wild meat anyway.
So I thought I'd get a leg up by buying the course materials (which are only available from certain places, like some shooting ranges and of course, from the certified firearms instructors (see here for a list: http://www.fseso.org/),
signed up for the course, which ran one weekend. You don't need to buy the manuals before the course, but as I said, I wanted to get a leg up on the materials and read them beforehand - otherwise, they are supplied by the course instructor at the class itself (they are $15.00 per manual). The course itself is $120.00 for the non-restricted firearms course and $120.00 for the restricted course. You can take both together for $200.00 on the same weekend.
Despite my instructor strongly encouraging me to take both non-restricted and restricted, I was pretty adamant in taking the non-restricted only. I have no interest in handguns and since there are virtually no air pistols that are firearms-grade, I had no reason to take it, despite the savings (why pay for something I will never use?) Even for airguns, I far prefer the rifles over the pistols, due to the amount of tweaking and accessories you can get - I am a sucker for optics like scopes and sighting devices. So I signed up for the non-restricted P.A.L., which will allow me to purchase the higher-powered air rifles and should I be interested later on, in rimfire (maybe) and centerfire (probably not) rifles as well as shotguns (the only shotguns I could see myself buying are for skeet shooting, but I think I just prefer the stationary paper targets).
So one Friday evening early last month, I went directly from work to a shooting facility about 30 minutes from my home and sat with a class of 10 other people who were looking to get their P.A.L. for one reason or another. Now, I have to confess, I was expecting to see a certain demographic of people there, especially when this facility was far away from Toronto in a more rural area. I was expecting to see your standard stereotypical redneck in suspenders, unwholesome bikers, mafia and other crime types, and some loner types, all of whom were Caucasian. I was quite surprised (and glad) to see that my perceptions were challenged. I ended up sitting at the same table as an older Greek grandfather guy who was a retired medical doctor. In front of us was a 20-something Black girl, who was a university student. Beside me sat an young Asian couple, who were also students in their 20s, there were a couple of Italian tough-guys behind us, but in conversations with one of the guys the next day, he was telling me that they were to-be hunters and he had people give him strange looks about taking the course (probably assumed he was a mobster as well) - and he said that criminals wouldn't be taking firearms safety courses, showing their face in public, etc. That is true. We also had a younger guy who was a security guard, and a couple of other guys who were a bit harder to read, though one of them was a married Russian guy - the other guy may have been the aforementioned loner type). Shortly before class began, two East Indian young guys walked in, with baggy pants and all, who wanted to take the restricted course to get their handgun licence - they didn't want to take the mandatory non-restricted course...I wondered about those guys...). Anyhow...
For those who have never handled a firearm or any type of gun in your life (squirt guns don't count), this course is a MUST. There are some firearms enthusiasts who don't have their P.A.L., but have worked with firearms long enough to know the terminology and parts and ammunition, that they would likely be able to pass both the written and practical portions of the RCMP-issued exam (the pass for both written and practical is 80% and you MUST pass BOTH). For me, it was a non-issue, since knowing the parts and workings of an airgun hardly qualifies me as knowledgeable in firearms. I'm glad I took the in-class portion. For the non-restricted course, it was about 12 hours of instruction in total. Some of the course involved videos, but the bulk of the course was the instructor going through the course manual piece-by-piece, giving a comprehensive understanding of the history of firearms, the class of firearms, the types of firearms, the types of ammo, and of course, the heavy component which involve gun safety from usage (loading/unloading/shooting), choosing and using the right ammunition (and recognizing the differences), using safeties to transport and storage, and social responsibilities, all of which was under the ACTS and PROVE principles (the course explains all this). You will get an opportunity to interact with different types of long-guns (rifles/shotguns), none of which actually involve live firing.
Most of the FSESO instructors will run their course as a "one-stop shop" for the whole process. They will administer the actual course, and will provide you the manuals, provide the P.A.L. application forms and run through the process with you, but the administering of the exams will be done by a third party examiner brought in. For the exams, you will fail if you get under 80%, but also, an instant fail is given if at any point, the firearm is pointed at someone, including yourself. You will lose points for not identifying the right ammo, and lose points badly if you put your finger inside the trigger guard or on the trigger at any point during the practical test. I scored 100% on the written test (much of this I attribute to reading the manual before the class and remembering a lot of it - which wasn't all that hard, since I had a keen interest in this stuff to begin with), and I scored 98% on the practical hands-on portion (only point I lost was when I did not check the size of the shot shell that I grabbed from a pile of ammo, before loading it into a pump-action shotgun - I already knew it was a 3" shell, but they docked me points for not checking before loading).
Once the course is done, the tests are all sent to the Chief Firearms Officer in your province to certify, after which they will send you back a copy of the test results by mail. At that point, you would fill out the application for the P.A.L., get your spouse (if you have one) to sign, get two references to sign, include a copy of your test results, include a photo that is to the government's guidelines, have a photo guarantor sign to confirm that that's you, and include your fee ($60.00 for non-restricted, $80.00 for restricted) to pay for your licence (which is good for five years).
Any time you subsequently buy a firearm (whether it be a gunpowder based firearm or a high power air rifle), you will need to show your P.A.L. They will then ring up the sale and if it is a good store, they will actually register the firearm with the federal government's gun registry for you while you wait (yeah, the gun registry sucks, but that's another discuss for another time). The gun registry is used by police, amongst other things, to alert them to a potential household that may have firearms if they are responding to a call (ie. domestic abuse, etc.). Of course, from what I understand, there have been search and seizure of homes that house firearms without notice (though those who fear this happening to them have not really read the cases where this has happened - the cops always have reasonable cause to ring your doorbell and ask to look at your firearms - they don't just do this out of the blue).
Except for the long gun registry, I personally like this process. It sure beats the U.S., where anyone can go into a store and buy a gun, with only a quick background check to verify non-criminal behaviour. That's how guys like Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech gunman, was able to buy his guns, even though he had severe mental and emotional problems. Sure, it's a pain in the butt for me to have to wait months (literally) to get my P.A.L., but I'd rather them go through this process and cause a legitimate law-abiding citizen like me some inconvenience, rather than to not do the due diligence and issue firearms licences like they were free tickets. The government has turned down thousands of P.A.L. applications and have revoked many others. And while some may view the safety course as an impediment, its value to any one handling firearms is invaluable.
In 1998, the Chretien Liberals scrapped that and replaced it with a licence called a Possession and Acquisition Licence (P.A.L.), which is not as easy to get. Now, you are required to pass two exams (one written, the other practical - which involved actually handling firearms) for the Canadian Firearms Security Course. Then comes the application itself which you require your spouse to sign off on, two references, a photo, etc. It is also a long wait to get your licence, since there are mandatory waiting periods. Also, there are different licences that you can get: the common non-restricted P.A.L. is for long guns: essentially rifles and shotguns. The restricted P.A.L. is primarily for handguns (some rifles apply to this - there are some measurement details). There is also a licence to acquire/possess prohibited weapons, but that is next to impossible to get, and the Canadian government have only issued a handful of those. Further, there are other licences you can get, like the Minor's Licence, which allows those 12-17 to use firearms as long as they are in immediate direct supervision of a person legally licenced to possess and use the firearms that the minor is using. And there are some other stipulations and / or exceptions for those who hunt to sustain their families (ie. Aboriginals on a reserve, etc.). The Possession-Only Licence was scrapped in 2001, so that is no longer obtainable, unless you are renewing an existing one.
Why was I considering getting a P.A.L.? As an avid recreational airgun shooter, I was quite happy at the selection of under 500FPS pistols and rifles that were available. Airgunning has grown in popularity and there are shooting clubs which are more or less for airgunners (I am a member of one here in the Toronto area). Still, there is an entire class of airguns which require a firearms licence - because they exceed the Canadian government's criteria of exceeding 500FPS velocity and exceeding 4.2 FPE (foot pounds energy) - as such, these primarily air rifles are classified as firearms and require a P.A.L. to purchase. That being said, right now the highest velocity air rifle shoots at around 1600FPS velocity (not sure of the FPE on that) with a special .177 caliber alloy pellet. Most P.A.L. rated air rifles will shoot between 700-1000 FPS. Consider that your average centerfire cartridge yields over 3500 FPS velocity and well over 1000 FPE, you can see that side by side, the most powerful air rifle still cannot hold a candle to its gunpowder-based comrades. Essentially that is why I originally chose and continue to choose airguns to shoot. I've been to several shooting ranges and while under 500 FPS airguns work at ranges which have its targets at 20 yards, you lose performance very quickly when shooting at the professional grade shooting facilities, built for centerfire rifles and handguns, which has the target around 50-100+ yards away. As such, I thought it would be good for me to get my P.A.L. in order to acquire better performing airguns (and one of the few air shotguns out there requires a P.A.L. - my local gunshop has this on hold for me).
Of course, I consulted with my wife first, who is not a firearms afficianado per se, but recognized my serious interest in sport shooting. She was more than happy to OK my request to attend the Canadian Firearms Safety Course one weekend, and was also OK that I applied for a firearms licence, since she knew why I was doing so. At the course, a few people looked at me strange, since most of them were getting their P.A.L. because they wanted to hunt, or because their job/vocation called for them to obtain a P.A.L. (ie. security guard or police officer). I simply want to be able to get better airguns - I have no interest in hunting - never have, never will, as long as I can buy my food at the grocery store (I'll let someone else deal with the mess in the slaughter house). Besides, I don't like the gamey taste of wild meat anyway.
So I thought I'd get a leg up by buying the course materials (which are only available from certain places, like some shooting ranges and of course, from the certified firearms instructors (see here for a list: http://www.fseso.org/),
signed up for the course, which ran one weekend. You don't need to buy the manuals before the course, but as I said, I wanted to get a leg up on the materials and read them beforehand - otherwise, they are supplied by the course instructor at the class itself (they are $15.00 per manual). The course itself is $120.00 for the non-restricted firearms course and $120.00 for the restricted course. You can take both together for $200.00 on the same weekend.
Despite my instructor strongly encouraging me to take both non-restricted and restricted, I was pretty adamant in taking the non-restricted only. I have no interest in handguns and since there are virtually no air pistols that are firearms-grade, I had no reason to take it, despite the savings (why pay for something I will never use?) Even for airguns, I far prefer the rifles over the pistols, due to the amount of tweaking and accessories you can get - I am a sucker for optics like scopes and sighting devices. So I signed up for the non-restricted P.A.L., which will allow me to purchase the higher-powered air rifles and should I be interested later on, in rimfire (maybe) and centerfire (probably not) rifles as well as shotguns (the only shotguns I could see myself buying are for skeet shooting, but I think I just prefer the stationary paper targets).
So one Friday evening early last month, I went directly from work to a shooting facility about 30 minutes from my home and sat with a class of 10 other people who were looking to get their P.A.L. for one reason or another. Now, I have to confess, I was expecting to see a certain demographic of people there, especially when this facility was far away from Toronto in a more rural area. I was expecting to see your standard stereotypical redneck in suspenders, unwholesome bikers, mafia and other crime types, and some loner types, all of whom were Caucasian. I was quite surprised (and glad) to see that my perceptions were challenged. I ended up sitting at the same table as an older Greek grandfather guy who was a retired medical doctor. In front of us was a 20-something Black girl, who was a university student. Beside me sat an young Asian couple, who were also students in their 20s, there were a couple of Italian tough-guys behind us, but in conversations with one of the guys the next day, he was telling me that they were to-be hunters and he had people give him strange looks about taking the course (probably assumed he was a mobster as well) - and he said that criminals wouldn't be taking firearms safety courses, showing their face in public, etc. That is true. We also had a younger guy who was a security guard, and a couple of other guys who were a bit harder to read, though one of them was a married Russian guy - the other guy may have been the aforementioned loner type). Shortly before class began, two East Indian young guys walked in, with baggy pants and all, who wanted to take the restricted course to get their handgun licence - they didn't want to take the mandatory non-restricted course...I wondered about those guys...). Anyhow...
For those who have never handled a firearm or any type of gun in your life (squirt guns don't count), this course is a MUST. There are some firearms enthusiasts who don't have their P.A.L., but have worked with firearms long enough to know the terminology and parts and ammunition, that they would likely be able to pass both the written and practical portions of the RCMP-issued exam (the pass for both written and practical is 80% and you MUST pass BOTH). For me, it was a non-issue, since knowing the parts and workings of an airgun hardly qualifies me as knowledgeable in firearms. I'm glad I took the in-class portion. For the non-restricted course, it was about 12 hours of instruction in total. Some of the course involved videos, but the bulk of the course was the instructor going through the course manual piece-by-piece, giving a comprehensive understanding of the history of firearms, the class of firearms, the types of firearms, the types of ammo, and of course, the heavy component which involve gun safety from usage (loading/unloading/shooting), choosing and using the right ammunition (and recognizing the differences), using safeties to transport and storage, and social responsibilities, all of which was under the ACTS and PROVE principles (the course explains all this). You will get an opportunity to interact with different types of long-guns (rifles/shotguns), none of which actually involve live firing.
Most of the FSESO instructors will run their course as a "one-stop shop" for the whole process. They will administer the actual course, and will provide you the manuals, provide the P.A.L. application forms and run through the process with you, but the administering of the exams will be done by a third party examiner brought in. For the exams, you will fail if you get under 80%, but also, an instant fail is given if at any point, the firearm is pointed at someone, including yourself. You will lose points for not identifying the right ammo, and lose points badly if you put your finger inside the trigger guard or on the trigger at any point during the practical test. I scored 100% on the written test (much of this I attribute to reading the manual before the class and remembering a lot of it - which wasn't all that hard, since I had a keen interest in this stuff to begin with), and I scored 98% on the practical hands-on portion (only point I lost was when I did not check the size of the shot shell that I grabbed from a pile of ammo, before loading it into a pump-action shotgun - I already knew it was a 3" shell, but they docked me points for not checking before loading).
Once the course is done, the tests are all sent to the Chief Firearms Officer in your province to certify, after which they will send you back a copy of the test results by mail. At that point, you would fill out the application for the P.A.L., get your spouse (if you have one) to sign, get two references to sign, include a copy of your test results, include a photo that is to the government's guidelines, have a photo guarantor sign to confirm that that's you, and include your fee ($60.00 for non-restricted, $80.00 for restricted) to pay for your licence (which is good for five years).
Any time you subsequently buy a firearm (whether it be a gunpowder based firearm or a high power air rifle), you will need to show your P.A.L. They will then ring up the sale and if it is a good store, they will actually register the firearm with the federal government's gun registry for you while you wait (yeah, the gun registry sucks, but that's another discuss for another time). The gun registry is used by police, amongst other things, to alert them to a potential household that may have firearms if they are responding to a call (ie. domestic abuse, etc.). Of course, from what I understand, there have been search and seizure of homes that house firearms without notice (though those who fear this happening to them have not really read the cases where this has happened - the cops always have reasonable cause to ring your doorbell and ask to look at your firearms - they don't just do this out of the blue).
Except for the long gun registry, I personally like this process. It sure beats the U.S., where anyone can go into a store and buy a gun, with only a quick background check to verify non-criminal behaviour. That's how guys like Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech gunman, was able to buy his guns, even though he had severe mental and emotional problems. Sure, it's a pain in the butt for me to have to wait months (literally) to get my P.A.L., but I'd rather them go through this process and cause a legitimate law-abiding citizen like me some inconvenience, rather than to not do the due diligence and issue firearms licences like they were free tickets. The government has turned down thousands of P.A.L. applications and have revoked many others. And while some may view the safety course as an impediment, its value to any one handling firearms is invaluable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)