Another year, another school shooting...
Sorry if it sounds crass, but doesn't this start to seem commonplace on an annual basis? Like we're simply expecting to hear about the next one. Last week, on Valentine's day, a former graduate of Northern Illinois University returned to his alma mater, and armed with a shotgun and handguns, proceeded to shoot students in a lecture hall. In total, this individual shot and killed five others before turning the gun on himself.
In the days ahead, internet forums and discussion groups were filled with renewed calls to ban firearms in the U.S. Guns are once again pointed out to be nothing more than a tool in which life can be extinguished.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - guns are not the problem here. Banning them won't solve any problems - schools like NIU were gun-free zones (so was Virginia Tech). Notice how these mass shooters gravitate towards places which are essentially gun-free? Schools, churches, shopping malls. Besides, you can look at countries like England, who, along with other parts of the U.K., have put a major squeeze on gun sales and the types of guns available (essentially banning them, even airguns) - there has been a noticeable rise in crime since these restrictions have been enacted. On the contrary, countries like Switzerland, whose citizens are armed more per capita than the U.S., have extremely low gun crime rates. But that is not the focus of this discussion and you can see my other blog entries for more info on this topic...
And no, I am not a flag-waving American gun nut, who cites the second amendment ad nauseum. Whatever your view on the second amendment, I find it difficult, even as a pro-gun guy, to believe that it is societally acceptable to sell guns to anyone, without a thorough suitable criminal background and more importantly, a mental history check performed first. The problem with some of these gun-loving Americans, is that they seem to favour individual rights over collective societal rights. So even a waiting period to get a gun license is considered an affront to their civil sensibilities. I personally, while I favour responsible gun ownership, have no issue with things such as a waiting period, as inconvenient as that would be for me. In Canada, you need to get a gun license, which involves a fairly detailed process, along with mandatory waiting periods for criminal and mental history checks - I have been through this and am glad this is in place - sure, it's a pain in the ass for me to have to wait, but I understand the reasoning behind it. Sure, one may be able to pass their Possession and Acquisition License (PAL) course and exams, and may have great references and such, but the government still does probe into your history a bit, and while it's conceivable that a person may get a gun license in Canada and still commit a crime later, the risk is far lessened, and if I were to hazard a guess, this is likely an exception, not the rule.
In this case, the Illinois shooter purchased his firearms legally a week or so before the campus shooting took place. From what I understand, he had a valid Illinois firearms license (not all states have such requirements, but Illinois does). So the anti-gun lobbyists may argue that even a firearms license may not work. Ah, but if you look at the last two prominent college campus shootings in the U.S., this one as well as Virginia Tech from last year, you'll see a bit of a parallel in the profiles of the shooters (I have decided to withhold their names to not afford them any more publicity). Both of these shooters, while having no previous criminal records, had documented cases of mental illness/depression, and in the case of the Illinois shooter, he was off his medication. Here's where probing a person's mental history would be of tremendous benefit, particularly before issuing the said person a firearm. The National Rifle Association (NRA) supports the release and use of this information before selling a gun to someone. Unfortunately, in most States, the extent of the background check would be for criminal activities and criminal records (and as we all know, criminals aren't necessarily law abiding citizens and as such, are unlikely to procure their guns legally anyway).
I think it's fairly obvious why the mental check is so important. Clearly, anyone hellbent (or even casually or seriously considering) on destroying human life via a shooting massacre is not playing with a full deck of cards. How they are ever issued either a firearms license or sold a firearm, is beyond me.
I find it laughable that in the initial reaction to the shooting, those close to the shooter and those who have known the shooter seemed so shocked that he did it. After all, he was supposedly a smart guy (which he would have been to have fooled so many people). He was a teacher's assistant, and was involved in developing some ideas on justice programs. Those around him used words like "revere" in describing him. Give me a freaking break...
If you recall, I wrote a blog entry last year about people living a life facade. Nothing surprises me anymore, and I have learned over time not to believe anything that I see. In this case even his teary-eyed girlfriend, who has known about his turbulent past and his needing to be medicated, is still somehow shocked that he was capable of doing this. Lady, the guy had mental problems - his profile should make him the prime candidate, not an after-thought! I've met a few people in my life who were really nice people, but you just saw signs that they had some mental issues. While under control, great, but if a person willingly goes off medication or pulls a fast one on someone and manages to acquire a firearm, look out. Being able to weed these people out (and whether you call it discriminatory or people profiling, I don't really care - for the societal good, some inconveniences are worth committing) will ensure that they don't have easy access to a gun license or firearm. Sure, they may still be able to acquire one, but it will be inevitably more difficult to do so. Like I said, anyone who is willing to turn a firearm on an innocent, unarmed group of human beings clearly has mental and emotional issues.
Showing posts with label gun. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gun. Show all posts
Sunday, February 17, 2008
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.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Right to Bear Arms
I've talked with a number of people in the past year or so about the whole topic of the right to bear arms, as embedded in the U.S. constitution. This is something that is not entrenched in the Canadian constitution (Charter of Rights and Freedoms), but to all the anti-gun naysayers, out there, a recent tragic example shows why this is so needed for our U.S. neighbours, and dare I say it, in Canada as well.
You may have read about the tragic shootings at the missionary center as well as a megachurch in Colorado yesterday. The story seems to be evolving to detail a disgruntled former adherent or member who decided to take out his frustration on others, killing innocent lives in the process. Now, I know what you may say - if they had banned guns, no one would be hurt. But let's live in reality here - to say that banning guns will create an atmosphere of non-violent behaviour and curb people killing one another is like saying that prohibition in the 1920s curbed the distribution, consumption, and trade of alcohol. Quite the opposite, history will tell us.
What ended up happening yesterday was a female member of the church, who happened to have been armed (yes, it does seem kind of weird that someone would go to church armed, but I digress), confronted the gunman, and eventually shot and killed him. Could you imagine what would have happened had she not had a weapon at her disposal? It is almost guaranteed that there would have been many more deaths at the hands of this twisted psycho. Look at the Virginia Tech massacre - a supposedly gun-free zone, and the carnage inflicted on there. You would have to be dumb to not reflect on how different things would have turned out had students and teachers been able to carry firearms to defend oneself.
I will agree, people carrying firearms is not the ideal solution for discouraging gun violence. But it is better than nothing. Passing more restrictive gun laws will only cause those who abide by them to be hand-cuffed - it will do nothing to prevent criminals from stealing or smuggling guns, and it certainly will not change the climate in some segments of society, which seem to place a lesser premium on the value of life. In those cases, the key is to provide a positive home environment which is not condusive to the child and young adult being left by themselves and feeling alienated and bored. The key to reducing violent behaviour, in my view, is for children to grow up in loving, stable families, not this single-parent stuff which is so prevalent. Kids from these types of environments are more likely to join similar kids and form gangs and use guns as a show of manhood and intimidation, rather than as a tool for protection, hunting for food, or sport enjoyment. But of course, we don't live in such an environment, and as much as we would like to see it change, societal trends show that this is unlikely to happen. So now you have people on the street who are angry with the world (as is often the case with these mass murder shooters), feel betrayed, feel knocked down and the only way for them to deal with this anger is to grab a gun and start shooting people. The gun is the the problem. Violent behaviour and a violent culture is. As long as that permeates throughout our society, people have a right to not be intimidated by those who obviously want to wreak havoc on their lives - people have a right to live their lives and not be subject to, or have their lives threatened by these increassingly angry, mentally unstable individuals who happen to have access to a firearm with ill intentions.
You may have read about the tragic shootings at the missionary center as well as a megachurch in Colorado yesterday. The story seems to be evolving to detail a disgruntled former adherent or member who decided to take out his frustration on others, killing innocent lives in the process. Now, I know what you may say - if they had banned guns, no one would be hurt. But let's live in reality here - to say that banning guns will create an atmosphere of non-violent behaviour and curb people killing one another is like saying that prohibition in the 1920s curbed the distribution, consumption, and trade of alcohol. Quite the opposite, history will tell us.
What ended up happening yesterday was a female member of the church, who happened to have been armed (yes, it does seem kind of weird that someone would go to church armed, but I digress), confronted the gunman, and eventually shot and killed him. Could you imagine what would have happened had she not had a weapon at her disposal? It is almost guaranteed that there would have been many more deaths at the hands of this twisted psycho. Look at the Virginia Tech massacre - a supposedly gun-free zone, and the carnage inflicted on there. You would have to be dumb to not reflect on how different things would have turned out had students and teachers been able to carry firearms to defend oneself.
I will agree, people carrying firearms is not the ideal solution for discouraging gun violence. But it is better than nothing. Passing more restrictive gun laws will only cause those who abide by them to be hand-cuffed - it will do nothing to prevent criminals from stealing or smuggling guns, and it certainly will not change the climate in some segments of society, which seem to place a lesser premium on the value of life. In those cases, the key is to provide a positive home environment which is not condusive to the child and young adult being left by themselves and feeling alienated and bored. The key to reducing violent behaviour, in my view, is for children to grow up in loving, stable families, not this single-parent stuff which is so prevalent. Kids from these types of environments are more likely to join similar kids and form gangs and use guns as a show of manhood and intimidation, rather than as a tool for protection, hunting for food, or sport enjoyment. But of course, we don't live in such an environment, and as much as we would like to see it change, societal trends show that this is unlikely to happen. So now you have people on the street who are angry with the world (as is often the case with these mass murder shooters), feel betrayed, feel knocked down and the only way for them to deal with this anger is to grab a gun and start shooting people. The gun is the the problem. Violent behaviour and a violent culture is. As long as that permeates throughout our society, people have a right to not be intimidated by those who obviously want to wreak havoc on their lives - people have a right to live their lives and not be subject to, or have their lives threatened by these increassingly angry, mentally unstable individuals who happen to have access to a firearm with ill intentions.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Guns Are Not The Problem with Violent Crime
Yesterday, Toronto experienced its first inside-a-school shooting fatality of a student. The initial reports are that it was caused by some fireworks that went awry and hit one of the students, and as a result, the hit student chased down the other student and shot him to death on school premises.
Toronto's left-wing mayor, David Miller, got on the airwaves and re-iterated the need to ban handguns, as a way to curb violent crime.
Unfortunately, such pat answers to deep stemming societal problems may sound good to liberal voters who are looking for someone or something to blame, but unfortunately, that is not the root of the problem.
Miller says that guns are only made to kill people. That is incorrect. Guns are used for shooting in biathlons in the Olympics. There is a large contingent of law-abiding sport shooters out there, who would never even accidentally point it at a person. These people have gone through the legal process to procure a gun, be trained on how to use it (and its associated safety features) and take steps to make sure that it does not fall into the wrong hands. And guess what, it is not the legal, law abiding gun owners who are the problem. Guns have been around for years, and gun crime has not been at the forefront of our news until maybe the last decade or so.
Here's the problem as I see it, and I will be quite candid here. Look at where the locations most of the shootings take place. With very few exceptions, it tends to be in the rougher areas of town, in the ghettos, in the housing projects, in the poorer areas of town. Case in point? The area in which this school shooting happened yesterday is very near the Jane/Finch intersection, known for its lower income, higher incidence of single mothers, and higher crime rates. You can't debate me on this one - there are copious police statistics that show this. I certainly don't blame the victim for what happened to him, but let's have a closer look here. The victim in yesterday's shooting was reported in the papers today, as having "gotten in trouble" in the past, despite some of his schoolmates who also report that he was a fun kid (of course, people will try to put a positive spin on people - ever notice no one ever says "yeah, that guy was a gangster, mistreated everyone - glad he's dead". From the indications in the paper, he was from a home with a single mom. Which obviously means there is no Dad in the house, no father figure, no male parent able to steer him in the right direction. What was this kid doing, setting off fireworks during the school day at an off-limits construction site?
I am willing to bet one month's salary - yours, not mine, that the unknown shooter came from a similar family - no Dad in the house, mother who works her butt off at a job to provide for her and her child(ren) - which by the way, is very respectable, though it should really be the deadbeat dad who should not have walked out on the family and instead provide for his kids. The shooter has probably had a history of being in trouble, and is probably not a straight-A student.
Part of the problem is poverty. Don't believe me? Look at the tony parts of your city and try to correlate how much crime happens in those parts based on reports, the news, etc. Now look at your poorer areas of the city and correlate how much crime happens there. I am willing to bet that the poorer areas experience more crime? Why? Usually single moms who work, the kids have nowhere to go, no Dad to hang out with, so they establish themselves with a crowd (often not a great one, whose members all come from similar families). They get into trouble, resolve conflict with violence, end up in trouble with the law. Drop out of school. Never really get a job - hang out with others who are in the same boat. Have way too much time on their hands. Commits more crimes. Gets some girl pregnant - takes off on the girl and doesn't have the balls to take responsibility. Cycle repeats.
Now, what's this have to do with guns? These people get their guns (in almost all cases illegally through theft or smuggling) and now they feel like a big man, just like the gangsters in the rap videos in the movies. They have someone piss them off. Clap! Clap! Clap! Take that, punk. Ghetto justice 101.
The other part of the problem is society's general predisposition to violence, and I don't mean just guns on TV and movies and video games. Cowboy and Western movies, Rambo, Terminator and such have been around forever. The 80s was not an era of major gun crime. I should know, because I went to elementary and high shool in the 80s and no one had a gun that I was aware of. I seldom heard of school shootings - actually, I can't recall one. You just didn't get a gun and take it to school those days - you punched each other out after school to solve problems - never was a gun used. Not to say that punching each other out is a great way to resolve conflict, but at least people did not even consider using a firearm.
Part of the problem is media-caused. Look at the willingness to show barbaric videos on TV, like the dead bodies of Saddam Hussein's sons. Hell, the video of the execution of Saddam was in high demand - why? This just de-sensitizes people. There seems to be a fascination on lethal injection lately. Why does the media need to discuss this? Look at the Virginia Tech shootings - all the fascination was on the shooter, his background - they even aired the video where he is ranting like crazy? Why give this the time of day? When al queda or some other terrorist groups beheaded captives and recorded it all by video feed, demand to see this on the internet was high. Why? The September 11 tragedy - planes into the World Trade Centre being played out over and over again on TV - this was an act of violence - why did the media feel it was necessary to run this over and over again, under the guise of some journalistic venture?
Guns are not the problem. The September 11 terrorists used planes to strike their violence and fear. Should we ban planes? Should we ban farm fertilizer and Ryder trucks just because Timothy McVeigh used both on the Oklahoma City bombings in 1995? Should you ban any kind of knife, since fatal stabbings seem to abound in this day and age? How about ropes of all kind, since people have used that to strangle others. Should you ban the car, as people use it as a weapon for road rage? OK, so the argumement may go that knives and ropes and cow crap and moving trucks serve a primary purpose and people use these items in a tertiary purpose when committing crimes, whereas guns are only made to kill. My issue with this argument is that if you ban guns overall in society, criminals will still be able to get them (just like when they banned alcohol during Prohibition) illegally. Now the law-abiding citizens have no way to defend themselves if needed. Law abiding gun owners can't hunt for food. Law abiding gun owners cannot participate in shooting sports. Banning guns will also give the people who have a pre-disposition to violence another way to kill their victims. Banning guns is not the solution.
The solution is tackling the issue of poverty, anger in particularly young men, the lack of focus on people's mental health, and the media's constant barrage of scenes of violence. Do I think that Hollywood should absorb any of the blame for its music and movies? Absolutely. You leave an impressionable young kid that the only way to fix a problem is to use a gun. The gun is not the problem - showing people on TV and movies and in videos shooting each other senselessly is the problem (this came out abundantly clear when my wife and I, back in 1992-1993 went to see Natural Born Killers in the theatre. It was the first movie I have ever walked out of in disgust - the wanton and senseless violence in that movie was unbelieveable. Not forcing young men to take responsibility for the girls that they impregnate and the subsequent child that is born is the problem. The fact that sleeping around seems to be fashionable in the media is the problem, as that does not teach cause and effect (and the value of people and relationships, especially committed ones like marriage).
Having teachers who are forced by school boards to sit on their hands, and not be allowed to properly discipline a child in his/her care is a problem. As a result of that, the kids don't respect teachers, since they have never developed a healthy fear of authority. If my son ever shows me disrespect, he will get five hard whacks across his ass, no questions asked. If parents weren't so afraid of children's aid and took the time out to properly discipline their kids (and I don't mean using freaking time outs, and such garbage), you'd be surprised by how kids will react. No, they will not hate you. Putting structure in kids' lives is very welcome. How do I know this? I run my Wednesday night kids group (grades 5/6 under a lot of structure. The kids don't get away with anything. I yell at them occasionally but also praise them when they do well (which is most of the time). Now, I never worry about these kids, since they all have a good Mom and a good Dad at home, who already teaches them all this stuff. So my job is pretty easy, but I see the results of good parenting from parents who take the time to discipline their own kids, teach respect, teach values, and teach morals.
The media's lack of focus on those who do good work and provide positive examples in these rougher areas, but instead focussing its energies on profiling criminals and Hollywood bad boys and bad girls is also part of the problem. Not giving these kids a positive outlet for their energies is a problem (one thing our church does really well is the youth outreach to neighbourhood kids - they have a safe environment which they embrace to hang out and have fun).
I want to address one final issue, one that people oftentimes criticize. Violent video games. I can see both points on this one. Have I played shoot 'em up games? Yes. Do I go around shooting people? No. Why? Because I am a grown adult and know what is a game and what is reality. I also am no longer in the teenage or young adult stage where I feel peer pressure and the need to belong or conform. Would I let my kid play the same games? Absolutely not. Why? Because he is impressionable. If he is a teen, I would not have any games like that on my computer - he is under enough pressure at school and with friends as it is. If he gets picked on in school, the last thing I want him to play is a shooting video game. I think this is a distinction that is lost on most people who call for all shooting video games to be banned. I think that, just like movies, there are some games that should not be viewed by any minors at all. Now, there is a side issue about the fact that they can go to their friend's house and watch or play the game. I never said my argument was bulletproof. That's just what I would do.
Ultimately, what can we do with our kids to steer them in the right direction so they don't resort to guns to shoot others? One is to set a good example at home. I impart a non-violent way of life to my son. I don't hit my wife during conflicts, I don't hit other people during conflicts. My wife does the same thing. My son sees my and my wife's example. So far, it's working - he does not retaliate when he is wronged (in general, he doesn't). I will not allow my son to be exposed to any video game that even has a hint of violence (right now, we are playing a game where we capture monkeys with nets). My brother got my son a V-Smile (from Vtech) that allows him to play very educational video games. My wife and I do not discuss violent news items in front of our son. We don't let him hang out with other boys and girls who exhibit violent behaviour (this has been tougher, but I'm pretty firm on this). I will always be there for my boy - I can't guarantee how he'll turn out, but at least he has a good running start in the right direction).
Toronto's left-wing mayor, David Miller, got on the airwaves and re-iterated the need to ban handguns, as a way to curb violent crime.
Unfortunately, such pat answers to deep stemming societal problems may sound good to liberal voters who are looking for someone or something to blame, but unfortunately, that is not the root of the problem.
Miller says that guns are only made to kill people. That is incorrect. Guns are used for shooting in biathlons in the Olympics. There is a large contingent of law-abiding sport shooters out there, who would never even accidentally point it at a person. These people have gone through the legal process to procure a gun, be trained on how to use it (and its associated safety features) and take steps to make sure that it does not fall into the wrong hands. And guess what, it is not the legal, law abiding gun owners who are the problem. Guns have been around for years, and gun crime has not been at the forefront of our news until maybe the last decade or so.
Here's the problem as I see it, and I will be quite candid here. Look at where the locations most of the shootings take place. With very few exceptions, it tends to be in the rougher areas of town, in the ghettos, in the housing projects, in the poorer areas of town. Case in point? The area in which this school shooting happened yesterday is very near the Jane/Finch intersection, known for its lower income, higher incidence of single mothers, and higher crime rates. You can't debate me on this one - there are copious police statistics that show this. I certainly don't blame the victim for what happened to him, but let's have a closer look here. The victim in yesterday's shooting was reported in the papers today, as having "gotten in trouble" in the past, despite some of his schoolmates who also report that he was a fun kid (of course, people will try to put a positive spin on people - ever notice no one ever says "yeah, that guy was a gangster, mistreated everyone - glad he's dead". From the indications in the paper, he was from a home with a single mom. Which obviously means there is no Dad in the house, no father figure, no male parent able to steer him in the right direction. What was this kid doing, setting off fireworks during the school day at an off-limits construction site?
I am willing to bet one month's salary - yours, not mine, that the unknown shooter came from a similar family - no Dad in the house, mother who works her butt off at a job to provide for her and her child(ren) - which by the way, is very respectable, though it should really be the deadbeat dad who should not have walked out on the family and instead provide for his kids. The shooter has probably had a history of being in trouble, and is probably not a straight-A student.
Part of the problem is poverty. Don't believe me? Look at the tony parts of your city and try to correlate how much crime happens in those parts based on reports, the news, etc. Now look at your poorer areas of the city and correlate how much crime happens there. I am willing to bet that the poorer areas experience more crime? Why? Usually single moms who work, the kids have nowhere to go, no Dad to hang out with, so they establish themselves with a crowd (often not a great one, whose members all come from similar families). They get into trouble, resolve conflict with violence, end up in trouble with the law. Drop out of school. Never really get a job - hang out with others who are in the same boat. Have way too much time on their hands. Commits more crimes. Gets some girl pregnant - takes off on the girl and doesn't have the balls to take responsibility. Cycle repeats.
Now, what's this have to do with guns? These people get their guns (in almost all cases illegally through theft or smuggling) and now they feel like a big man, just like the gangsters in the rap videos in the movies. They have someone piss them off. Clap! Clap! Clap! Take that, punk. Ghetto justice 101.
The other part of the problem is society's general predisposition to violence, and I don't mean just guns on TV and movies and video games. Cowboy and Western movies, Rambo, Terminator and such have been around forever. The 80s was not an era of major gun crime. I should know, because I went to elementary and high shool in the 80s and no one had a gun that I was aware of. I seldom heard of school shootings - actually, I can't recall one. You just didn't get a gun and take it to school those days - you punched each other out after school to solve problems - never was a gun used. Not to say that punching each other out is a great way to resolve conflict, but at least people did not even consider using a firearm.
Part of the problem is media-caused. Look at the willingness to show barbaric videos on TV, like the dead bodies of Saddam Hussein's sons. Hell, the video of the execution of Saddam was in high demand - why? This just de-sensitizes people. There seems to be a fascination on lethal injection lately. Why does the media need to discuss this? Look at the Virginia Tech shootings - all the fascination was on the shooter, his background - they even aired the video where he is ranting like crazy? Why give this the time of day? When al queda or some other terrorist groups beheaded captives and recorded it all by video feed, demand to see this on the internet was high. Why? The September 11 tragedy - planes into the World Trade Centre being played out over and over again on TV - this was an act of violence - why did the media feel it was necessary to run this over and over again, under the guise of some journalistic venture?
Guns are not the problem. The September 11 terrorists used planes to strike their violence and fear. Should we ban planes? Should we ban farm fertilizer and Ryder trucks just because Timothy McVeigh used both on the Oklahoma City bombings in 1995? Should you ban any kind of knife, since fatal stabbings seem to abound in this day and age? How about ropes of all kind, since people have used that to strangle others. Should you ban the car, as people use it as a weapon for road rage? OK, so the argumement may go that knives and ropes and cow crap and moving trucks serve a primary purpose and people use these items in a tertiary purpose when committing crimes, whereas guns are only made to kill. My issue with this argument is that if you ban guns overall in society, criminals will still be able to get them (just like when they banned alcohol during Prohibition) illegally. Now the law-abiding citizens have no way to defend themselves if needed. Law abiding gun owners can't hunt for food. Law abiding gun owners cannot participate in shooting sports. Banning guns will also give the people who have a pre-disposition to violence another way to kill their victims. Banning guns is not the solution.
The solution is tackling the issue of poverty, anger in particularly young men, the lack of focus on people's mental health, and the media's constant barrage of scenes of violence. Do I think that Hollywood should absorb any of the blame for its music and movies? Absolutely. You leave an impressionable young kid that the only way to fix a problem is to use a gun. The gun is not the problem - showing people on TV and movies and in videos shooting each other senselessly is the problem (this came out abundantly clear when my wife and I, back in 1992-1993 went to see Natural Born Killers in the theatre. It was the first movie I have ever walked out of in disgust - the wanton and senseless violence in that movie was unbelieveable. Not forcing young men to take responsibility for the girls that they impregnate and the subsequent child that is born is the problem. The fact that sleeping around seems to be fashionable in the media is the problem, as that does not teach cause and effect (and the value of people and relationships, especially committed ones like marriage).
Having teachers who are forced by school boards to sit on their hands, and not be allowed to properly discipline a child in his/her care is a problem. As a result of that, the kids don't respect teachers, since they have never developed a healthy fear of authority. If my son ever shows me disrespect, he will get five hard whacks across his ass, no questions asked. If parents weren't so afraid of children's aid and took the time out to properly discipline their kids (and I don't mean using freaking time outs, and such garbage), you'd be surprised by how kids will react. No, they will not hate you. Putting structure in kids' lives is very welcome. How do I know this? I run my Wednesday night kids group (grades 5/6 under a lot of structure. The kids don't get away with anything. I yell at them occasionally but also praise them when they do well (which is most of the time). Now, I never worry about these kids, since they all have a good Mom and a good Dad at home, who already teaches them all this stuff. So my job is pretty easy, but I see the results of good parenting from parents who take the time to discipline their own kids, teach respect, teach values, and teach morals.
The media's lack of focus on those who do good work and provide positive examples in these rougher areas, but instead focussing its energies on profiling criminals and Hollywood bad boys and bad girls is also part of the problem. Not giving these kids a positive outlet for their energies is a problem (one thing our church does really well is the youth outreach to neighbourhood kids - they have a safe environment which they embrace to hang out and have fun).
I want to address one final issue, one that people oftentimes criticize. Violent video games. I can see both points on this one. Have I played shoot 'em up games? Yes. Do I go around shooting people? No. Why? Because I am a grown adult and know what is a game and what is reality. I also am no longer in the teenage or young adult stage where I feel peer pressure and the need to belong or conform. Would I let my kid play the same games? Absolutely not. Why? Because he is impressionable. If he is a teen, I would not have any games like that on my computer - he is under enough pressure at school and with friends as it is. If he gets picked on in school, the last thing I want him to play is a shooting video game. I think this is a distinction that is lost on most people who call for all shooting video games to be banned. I think that, just like movies, there are some games that should not be viewed by any minors at all. Now, there is a side issue about the fact that they can go to their friend's house and watch or play the game. I never said my argument was bulletproof. That's just what I would do.
Ultimately, what can we do with our kids to steer them in the right direction so they don't resort to guns to shoot others? One is to set a good example at home. I impart a non-violent way of life to my son. I don't hit my wife during conflicts, I don't hit other people during conflicts. My wife does the same thing. My son sees my and my wife's example. So far, it's working - he does not retaliate when he is wronged (in general, he doesn't). I will not allow my son to be exposed to any video game that even has a hint of violence (right now, we are playing a game where we capture monkeys with nets). My brother got my son a V-Smile (from Vtech) that allows him to play very educational video games. My wife and I do not discuss violent news items in front of our son. We don't let him hang out with other boys and girls who exhibit violent behaviour (this has been tougher, but I'm pretty firm on this). I will always be there for my boy - I can't guarantee how he'll turn out, but at least he has a good running start in the right direction).
Monday, April 2, 2007
Airgun Misconceptions Dispelled
This year, I developed an interest in airgunning. I have been greeted with funny, if not downright suspicious looks, from the very few people wo whom I have mentioned this. I strongly suspect that people think if you have an airgun (or any gun), you must be a violent person and are on the edge and are a stone's throw from being Columbine material. Nothing can be further from the truth.
While I have, at this point, not as much interest in getting a real gun licence (powder burners) due to the fact I have no interest in hunting, my interest in airguns is due to the fact that I've always wanted to target practice with an airgun, ever since I was a kid. I know growing up, my parents would have never bought me one, though had I gone to Scouts, I would have had some exposure. For me, airgun target practice is like going to the golf driving range (something else which I love to do). You set a target, aim for it, and it's really all about concentration, discipline and practice. I have no desire to hunt (except for backyard pest control), and I don't possess the arm and upper body strength to draw a real bow, so airguns are a good middle point for basic target practice. I go to a range in Scarborough, which is completely regulated, and safe (and one of the airgunning instructors there was an Olympic medalist back in 1988 - you did know they have airguns in the winter olympics, right?). Probably will go less, now that golf season is on, but it is a great way to relax on a lunch break or when I have a couple of free hours.
So...what's the difference between an airgun and a "real" gun. Now, I must qualify this by saying that some airguns are pretty powerful, but you will need a PAL (Possession and Acquisition Licence - formerly F.A.C.) to purchase them. In Canada, the line drawn between a firearm and a non-firearm is whether the projectile velocity is over 500 feet per second (FPS) AND produces a certain amount of energy (I think it's 4.2 f.p.e. - FPE stands for foot pounds energy or something like that - I can probably look it up). Most paintguns are around 300FPS and under, but of course, paintguns shoot paintballs which explode on contact with a water-soluable substance.
In Canada, you need to be 18 or over to buy an airgun.
Airguns come, just like any other gun, in pistol or rifle format. Rifles are heavy (for me anyway, since I'm a weakling), but obviously because of the longer barrel, it is good for distance shooting - if you want to pick off that squirrel that's been nibbling into your roof - wise choice. Generally, for target practice and offical tournament matches, I believe the standard distance is around 10 meters. As a result, you don't need a very powerful airgun at all - in fact, most match guns don't carry a lot of oomph, but they are accurate.
For airguns that are over 500FPS and require a PAL, they are treated like an actual firearm. Some airguns can go up to 1700FPS, but I've heard you start losing velocity at around 1050FPS. I don't have a PAL, nor do I desire to get one, since my application is pretty limited (basic target shooting). I often wonder if I would have joined Scouts, how my eyes would have been as a kid - since you know, Scouts and Cadets use airguns as part of their programs. Right now, I enjoy the occasional recreational shooting.
Airguns are powered by compressed air, and that comes in various forms - a spring loaded gun (often times these are single break-barrel rifles - the more powerful airguns), a pumped gun (which I have never understood since by the time you pump it 6-7 times, your arms are tired), and of course, my favourite, CO2-powered (they come in 12 or 88gram canisters) - generally CO2 guns are not as powerful as a break barrel.
There are different projectiles for airgunning, but for people like me in the under 500FPS crowd, it doesn't really what you use. For paper targets and match tournaments, the best type is the flat wadcutters - the flat head cuts clean holes through your paper target so you can easily inspect how you did. There are other projectiles use for hunting (pointed, domed, hollow point, etc.), but those are for the more powerful guns (over 500FPS). You can get them in .177 caliber, .20 caliber, .22 caliber, .25 caliber and there are other higher calibers as well, but those are the more common ones.
There is a huge audience out there that does modifications to their airguns, to get better accuracy, feel, performance, etc. Most of the standard airguns by in the store are pretty plasticky - generally, some wooden grips would be a welcome addition, etc. I am not into the whole modding thing - the stock options are adequate - though for whatever reason, I love tinkering with different scopes.
Oh, one other thing. You should know that airguns are not exactly the same as BB guns and airsoft guns. While I won't go into it in detail, airsoft uses plastic "BB" type of projectiles, while BBs are metallic balls. Most airgun ammo are in the form of pellets. Airsoft is huge in countries like Japan, which have fairly strict regulations on anything which fires a projectile.
One of the best airguns out there at a great cost is the Crosman 2240. That is a solid gun out of the box and it is probably the most modded gun in the world of hobby airgunning. Some other airguns are not as modular and you can't really take them apart to do anything - again, that is not my area of interest. Another good gun that is match-grade (can be used for tournaments) is the Daisy 7 x7 - it is a single side-pump airgun - really ugly, but good for professional target competitions. There are also some good match-grade guns made by Dianawerk (or Diana for short), but I haven't seen any in the Toronto area - their reputation preceeds them, though.
There are people out there who will say that why get into airgunning - why not collect stamps or something "safer". You ever collected stamps before? I have. BORRRRRRRING... Also, just like on the golf driving range, I get great satisfaction in knowing that with practice, you can get pretty good at target shooting. And airguns are fairly safe to use - lots of safety features and just like anything else, if you pratice good safety and take safety seriously, there is little to no risk for injury. It is people who think that people who use airguns will accidently shoot themselves, really show that they have no idea what an airgun is or how it works (same goes for a "real" gun). You see more serious injuries in kids hockey with slapshot pucks hitting people in the head, knocking out teeth, etc. Obviously, airguns are not toys and are not for kids, but in the hands of a responsible adult who practices safety, they can be a great source of skill development. That is the reason I am developing into an avid airgunner. I am hoping that if I get really good, I'll be able to enter competitive tournaments.
Some people also think guns and airguns are for either people who live in trailer parks or that you need to be a right-wing white person to qualify as an owner of firearms. Nothing can be further from the truth. Just like golf (which people still think is a white man's sport), airgunning has caught on big time amongst gun enthusiasts in the city who are more restricted on what they can shoot in their basements or backyards. I am on several airgun forums and OK, I'm one of few Asians there, but in going to the range, I am finding there are more Asians shooting guns than talking about them. Nothing wrong with that.
People also think gun enthusiasts are violent, uneducated people. I am usually not this forward, but I have a bachelor's degree, I have a family (wife and child), I have never been in trouble with the law, I am active in my church, volunteering in many capacities. I do not have a short fuse, I have a happy marriage, I don't abuse alcohol, I don't get into fights, I don't do drugs, etc. etc. In fact, in meeting other gun enthusiasts, I have found them far more educated on things like physics and other sciences than non-gun owners. Unfortunately, too many people have been watching too many TV shows...
While I have, at this point, not as much interest in getting a real gun licence (powder burners) due to the fact I have no interest in hunting, my interest in airguns is due to the fact that I've always wanted to target practice with an airgun, ever since I was a kid. I know growing up, my parents would have never bought me one, though had I gone to Scouts, I would have had some exposure. For me, airgun target practice is like going to the golf driving range (something else which I love to do). You set a target, aim for it, and it's really all about concentration, discipline and practice. I have no desire to hunt (except for backyard pest control), and I don't possess the arm and upper body strength to draw a real bow, so airguns are a good middle point for basic target practice. I go to a range in Scarborough, which is completely regulated, and safe (and one of the airgunning instructors there was an Olympic medalist back in 1988 - you did know they have airguns in the winter olympics, right?). Probably will go less, now that golf season is on, but it is a great way to relax on a lunch break or when I have a couple of free hours.
So...what's the difference between an airgun and a "real" gun. Now, I must qualify this by saying that some airguns are pretty powerful, but you will need a PAL (Possession and Acquisition Licence - formerly F.A.C.) to purchase them. In Canada, the line drawn between a firearm and a non-firearm is whether the projectile velocity is over 500 feet per second (FPS) AND produces a certain amount of energy (I think it's 4.2 f.p.e. - FPE stands for foot pounds energy or something like that - I can probably look it up). Most paintguns are around 300FPS and under, but of course, paintguns shoot paintballs which explode on contact with a water-soluable substance.
In Canada, you need to be 18 or over to buy an airgun.
Airguns come, just like any other gun, in pistol or rifle format. Rifles are heavy (for me anyway, since I'm a weakling), but obviously because of the longer barrel, it is good for distance shooting - if you want to pick off that squirrel that's been nibbling into your roof - wise choice. Generally, for target practice and offical tournament matches, I believe the standard distance is around 10 meters. As a result, you don't need a very powerful airgun at all - in fact, most match guns don't carry a lot of oomph, but they are accurate.
For airguns that are over 500FPS and require a PAL, they are treated like an actual firearm. Some airguns can go up to 1700FPS, but I've heard you start losing velocity at around 1050FPS. I don't have a PAL, nor do I desire to get one, since my application is pretty limited (basic target shooting). I often wonder if I would have joined Scouts, how my eyes would have been as a kid - since you know, Scouts and Cadets use airguns as part of their programs. Right now, I enjoy the occasional recreational shooting.
Airguns are powered by compressed air, and that comes in various forms - a spring loaded gun (often times these are single break-barrel rifles - the more powerful airguns), a pumped gun (which I have never understood since by the time you pump it 6-7 times, your arms are tired), and of course, my favourite, CO2-powered (they come in 12 or 88gram canisters) - generally CO2 guns are not as powerful as a break barrel.
There are different projectiles for airgunning, but for people like me in the under 500FPS crowd, it doesn't really what you use. For paper targets and match tournaments, the best type is the flat wadcutters - the flat head cuts clean holes through your paper target so you can easily inspect how you did. There are other projectiles use for hunting (pointed, domed, hollow point, etc.), but those are for the more powerful guns (over 500FPS). You can get them in .177 caliber, .20 caliber, .22 caliber, .25 caliber and there are other higher calibers as well, but those are the more common ones.
There is a huge audience out there that does modifications to their airguns, to get better accuracy, feel, performance, etc. Most of the standard airguns by in the store are pretty plasticky - generally, some wooden grips would be a welcome addition, etc. I am not into the whole modding thing - the stock options are adequate - though for whatever reason, I love tinkering with different scopes.
Oh, one other thing. You should know that airguns are not exactly the same as BB guns and airsoft guns. While I won't go into it in detail, airsoft uses plastic "BB" type of projectiles, while BBs are metallic balls. Most airgun ammo are in the form of pellets. Airsoft is huge in countries like Japan, which have fairly strict regulations on anything which fires a projectile.
One of the best airguns out there at a great cost is the Crosman 2240. That is a solid gun out of the box and it is probably the most modded gun in the world of hobby airgunning. Some other airguns are not as modular and you can't really take them apart to do anything - again, that is not my area of interest. Another good gun that is match-grade (can be used for tournaments) is the Daisy 7 x7 - it is a single side-pump airgun - really ugly, but good for professional target competitions. There are also some good match-grade guns made by Dianawerk (or Diana for short), but I haven't seen any in the Toronto area - their reputation preceeds them, though.
There are people out there who will say that why get into airgunning - why not collect stamps or something "safer". You ever collected stamps before? I have. BORRRRRRRING... Also, just like on the golf driving range, I get great satisfaction in knowing that with practice, you can get pretty good at target shooting. And airguns are fairly safe to use - lots of safety features and just like anything else, if you pratice good safety and take safety seriously, there is little to no risk for injury. It is people who think that people who use airguns will accidently shoot themselves, really show that they have no idea what an airgun is or how it works (same goes for a "real" gun). You see more serious injuries in kids hockey with slapshot pucks hitting people in the head, knocking out teeth, etc. Obviously, airguns are not toys and are not for kids, but in the hands of a responsible adult who practices safety, they can be a great source of skill development. That is the reason I am developing into an avid airgunner. I am hoping that if I get really good, I'll be able to enter competitive tournaments.
Some people also think guns and airguns are for either people who live in trailer parks or that you need to be a right-wing white person to qualify as an owner of firearms. Nothing can be further from the truth. Just like golf (which people still think is a white man's sport), airgunning has caught on big time amongst gun enthusiasts in the city who are more restricted on what they can shoot in their basements or backyards. I am on several airgun forums and OK, I'm one of few Asians there, but in going to the range, I am finding there are more Asians shooting guns than talking about them. Nothing wrong with that.
People also think gun enthusiasts are violent, uneducated people. I am usually not this forward, but I have a bachelor's degree, I have a family (wife and child), I have never been in trouble with the law, I am active in my church, volunteering in many capacities. I do not have a short fuse, I have a happy marriage, I don't abuse alcohol, I don't get into fights, I don't do drugs, etc. etc. In fact, in meeting other gun enthusiasts, I have found them far more educated on things like physics and other sciences than non-gun owners. Unfortunately, too many people have been watching too many TV shows...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)