With a Glock 18c? From my perspective, I find your 'offtopic' comments to be somewhat invalidated by jevjnd's comment in the first post: IMHO, this seems to be an opening to a anticillary debate on the merits of firearm ownership. It seems to me that if we are limited only to the intended subject of a thread and not the body of the first post, then one would be able to make all sorts of false assumptions and propositions and any response would therefore have to accept those suppositions as fact? I would also suggest that this 'more organic' interpretation of on subject is especially aplicable to the Hangout, where topics are generally more open-ended and philosophical in nature. BTW, I never got an answer to how jevjnd was able to get what I assume was a fairly difficult to obtain license for a fully automatic pistol which fires roughly 1200 rouns per minute...
I don't own a gun and have taken both sides of the issue in the past. But how about knives for protection? I would recommend Wustoff, Henckles, Solingen or any of the good brands that you would use in the kitchen. I mention it for two reasons: 1) I can understand that having some sort of weapon that you just feel comfortable using makes you feel safer. When we lived in Chicago I had to take the train through the South Side of Chicago (notorious ghetto for those not familiar) after midnight a lot and carrying my knife case with me knowing that my knife skills were pretty decent did make me feel safer. Granted, I never deboned anything that wasn't already dead, but no matter ... Knives conveniently double for practical use in the kitchen - you will definately get your money's worth. 2) It brings up the question of where people want to draw the line. If you are worried that guns kill people, are other weapons alright? Why or why not?
On the contrary, I think jevenjnvjnvd's remark was made to pre-empt the inevitable anti-gun whining he knew would derail a thread that by its title was very obviously intended to solicit feedback on a specific model of gun rather than explore the right to bear arms. And I think any organic interpretation of the thread was unnecessary after I clarified its purpose. You'll notice I neither closed the thread nor deleted the off-topic posts. If you guys want to beat the horse to see if it gets any more dead, have at it. I figured the gun nuts would want at least one thread on the subject of guns in which they could express their interest in them without defending their legality or discussing Constitutional interpretation.
So Brian, How do you feel about the Glock? I personally own a 19 (9mm) and love it, even if I rarely shoot it. I've grown much fonder of old single action revolvers and find that there are not many guns as well balanced and fun to shoot as a colt single action army (or clone thereof). PS - there hasn't been near as much 'anti-gun whining' in this thread as I expected. I've never participated in a gun discussion on this board so I had no idea how it would go. I guess some just avoid the thread all together.
I wanted to add that if I wanted to get another Glock it would be the Glock 17...Reason is because 9mm may be the best balanced, overall ammo (best combo of power vs. rcoil)...In addition it is generally cheaper than .40, .45, 10 mm, .357 sig, etc.... The Glock 17 can handle 17 round mags flushly (if you can find them)
Ooohh.....I don't think I'd want to use any of my Henkles on an intruder. What if I thrust it into or between bones, and he twisted as he fell? I know those blades are stong, but they could still break. No burgler is worth that. So Mrs. Valdez.....are you Chara? If so, I sure hope you stick around. Baking is my one weak (well.....not as strong as the others) point in the kitchen.
By the way, I have a loud barking dog for home protection. I also have several guns....most notable a S&W Model 29 with an 8 3/8" barrel....but they are kept separate from the ammo and are hidden in such a manner that it wouldn't be convenient to retrieve them. I probably haven't gone shooting in over ten years.....but interestingly enough, I'm supposed to go shoot sporting clays this weekend.
Pole, if you're thinking about stalking her remember that she has been highly trained with a knife and could probably dice you before you hit the ground.
Having used Henckles to cut through bone before, I am sure it could withstand it. I know a chef who was stabbed with one accidently and I believe the knife was fine. As to my identity, I could tell you but I'd have to kill you ...
None other than the Queen of England... How would you like it if she were to march into your house and slap you around?
don't worry about the stalking. I'm sure she's a lovely woman, but as I like to remind my wife: one woman is more than enough. ....somtimes bordering on too much. But to have another cook on the BBS; especially an accomplished one....now, that is something. I mean Heypartner is great and all.....but you know......sometimes.......well, sometimes he goes off on a tangent and doesn't come back. Anyway, don't worry.....I promise to talk about the size of my Viking.
WELL! I'll defer to your authority on the subject, but does this mean that you have some sort of special administrator divinitory powers, or did he actually tell you the purpose so you could clarify it to us? Anyway, I have really enjoyed pontificating in this thread, meandering off topic. I apologise if I've offended anybody's sensibilities. My opinion generally has been that the best hangout discussions have meandered off topic. I supose it's just a question of asthetics, and since you're an administrator, you win. I'll do my best to try and tone it down. (BTW, I think knives have less appeal as personal defense weapons because there is such an advantage with a knife for physical prowess, as well as in depth training. The gun is sort of the 'great equalizer'.)
This is truly a uniquely American thread. But, if you’re looking for someone on the other side of this issue I’ve got a couple minutes to add my 2 cents. Interesting point, and one that shows itself later in the thread, like here. Not sure how that’s relevant to the issue. See also the box cutters quote. I’ve always found this argument odd. Does this mean that you wouldn’t mind your neighbour storing a bomb in his house, or an assault riffle, or a hand grenade? After all, these things don’t kill people, people do. I’ve always found that this statement avoids the real issue, the threat posed to society in general by allowing citizens to own handguns. I’m not following. Are you suggesting that because the 9/11 attacks weren’t carried out with handguns they are, therefore, safe? There may be a little problem with the logic there. Yes. It’s a lot harder to stab someone than it is to shoot them, and it takes a lot more work, skill and nerve to do the same kind of damage. I don’t know who this guy is, but there’s lot of convincing data that suggests that guns increase the murder rate. Try comparing the US to other countries. Here’s a Canadian comparison. http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheCaseForGunControl.html#intl Again, I don’t know what your media has been saying, but there is plenty of evidence that allowing people to own handguns poses a threat to a nations’ citizens. In fact you could say that handgun owners violate the rights and freedoms of the general public by creating a dangerous environment, much like if your neighbour wanted to keep a bomb in his house. Most people would say, “he can’t do that, what if it went off?” Well, what if your gun goes off? What if a criminal steals it? It happens all the time, and it creates a threat to all citizens. Doesn’t seem to say anything about handguns. Obviously you have laws limiting the ownership of assault rifles and other automatic weapons, so this clearly doesn’t throw the door open to all guns. It seems to me that all that is needed is a recognition that handgun ownership by private citizens also poses a threat public safety. Where’s the constitutional issue there? There has already been a precedent set by controlling assault riffles. As for personal and national safety, that sounds to me like what the Swiss do. Almost every man has a rifle there, and they are trained to use it. That’s one of the reason’s the Swiss have managed to stay neutral for so many years, potential invading armies knew that a great many of the citizens were armed. Is this not the kind of thing the constitution was referring to? There’s nothing there that suggests handguns are sacrosanct. So, to bring this back to the original intended purpose of said Glock, I think you’re safer not buying the gun and instead supporting severely restricting private ownership of handguns. That's this Canadian's viewpoint anyway. Btw, I enjoy reading your posts Ottomaton. Your writing has a nice flow to it.
I thought this off topic discussion was over.?! I'll address some of the points of reasoning you don't understand when I have more time but until then here is some information on how your government is chosing to handle the gun control situation... Canada: Where Gun Registration Equals Confiscation "Let us not hear that (registration) is a prelude to the confiscation by the government of hunting rifles and shotguns," Canadian Justice Minister Allan Rock said in Clintonesque tones on Feb. 16, 1995. "There is no reason to confiscate legally owned firearms." Ten months after Rock's remarks, Parliament passed the Canadian Firearms Act, and confiscating legally owned firearms is precisely the first thing the new law did. The first of three major provisions to go into effect banned private ownership of well more than half of Canada's legally registered pistols. Any handgun of .32 or .25 caliber and any handgun with a barrel length of 105 mm (4.14") or less--more than 553,000 legally registered handguns--became illegal with the stroke of a pen. Pistol owners, of course, had been promised that registration would never lead to confiscation when Canada's national handgun registry was enacted in 1934. When the newer law passed five years ago, they were given three options: sell their handguns to any dealer or individual legally qualified to buy them (not a real option because the number of potential buyers was so small); render them inoperable; or surrender them to the government without compensation. The second phase of the new law requires a government-issued firearms owner license. As of Jan. 1, 2001, anyone who owns a shotgun or rifle but did not apply for a license faces five years in prison and a $2,000 fine. These licenses are also required to buy a long gun, or if you just want to buy a box of rifle cartridges to put in Dad's Christmas stocking. The third phase of the new law goes into effect Jan. 1, 2003, when each individual long gun must be registered. If summarily outlawing possession of more than half the nation's legally registered handguns were not enough to raise a firestorm of criticism, the licensing and registration program for long guns has prompted an unprecedented and broad-based call for civil disobedience. This is remarkable for Canadians, who are exceedingly deferential to the government and the courts. The government has a serious credibility problem brought on by its refusal to release reliable cost figures for implementing and maintaining its licensing and registration scheme, gross exaggerations of the gun crime problem, and deliberate underestimates of the number of guns and gun owners in Canada. Anne McLellan is Rock's Liberal Party colleague and his successor as Justice Minister. She has been called "Canada's Janet Reno." As recently as 1999, she promised in a letter to the Toronto Star that licensing and registration fees would cover 100 percent of the cost of implementing and maintaining the new licensing and registration bureaucracy. But members of Parliament say they have been grievously misled about the final cost of the licensing and registration program. They claim bureaucrats in Ottawa are illegally concealing true budget figures in fear of further fueling public outrage. Garry Breitkreuz, Member of Parliament (MP) from Saskatchewan and leader of the parliamentary opposition to the Firearms Act, told American Rifleman in a telephone interview that the government's claim that its licensing and registration system could be implemented for $85 million over five years is "pure poppycock." <b>"The government has admitted on three separate occasions . . . that since handgun registration was implemented in 1934, not one single crime in Canada has been solved using the national pistol registry."--MP Garry Breitkreuz</b> "Justice Minister Allan Rock told the House of Commons that the cost of setting up the . . .system would be $85 million spread over five years," Breitkreuz said. "Justice Minister Anne McLellan is desperately trying to convince Canadian taxpayers that the start-up costs for the Liberal gun registry will top out at $120 million." David Austin, spokesman for the Canadian Firearms Center, the Department of Justice branch that administers provisions of the new law, said the $85 million figure was merely "an estimate of the start-up costs," and that the actual figure was $120 million. He said the total cost over five years will be $327 million. Breitkreuz counters, "The government is using cabinet secrecy provisions to hide the real budget numbers. It's going to cost at least 10 times (the original $85 million) amount just to put in the licensing system, and even that will not cover the cost of registering individual guns." Although he said he has been "stonewalled every step of the way" and denied all the budget documents he has requested, Breitkreuz said his office has obtained spreadsheets that indicate the cost surpassed $300 million a year ago. Just one contractor involved in getting the licensing and registration system up and running, EDS Canada, had five revisions to one contract that resulted in a 325 percent cost overrun, and a second contract had six revisions resulting in a 319 percent cost increase. Dennis Young, a former Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) officer and now a parliamentary staff member for Breitkreuz, challenged McLellan's claim that the system would be self-supporting based on fee collection. "As of August 11, they'd only collected $17 million in owner license fees, and they had to refund $1.2 million because of the reduced fee," cut from $30 to $10 to encourage compliance. "This is not just a little blunder. The taxpayer is footing the bill for the government to deliberately mislead Parliament." While Austin, the Justice Department spokesman, told American Rifleman that the system would require a staff of 400 for the processing center in New Brunswick, Breitkreuz said he has documents indicating that 391 RCMP officers have been re-assigned to the effort, along with at least another 600 civilian staff members. A separate registry is being set up for Quebec, the MP said. The New York Timespegged the registry workforce at 1,500, and Edmonton Journal columnist Lorne Gunter, a critic of the new law, said the real figure is closer to 1,700. And the personnel numbers may go higher. Local and provincial governments in western Canada, angered, in part, by the continual juggling of numbers, have refused to enforce the new law. As a result, the central government was forced to federalize each province's Chief Firearms Officer. Cost and personnel numbers aside, Breitkreuz said, <b>"Even if you license every single gun owner, and lay a registration paper by every gun, you've done nothing to make our lives safer, our government better, or to reduce crime. There's no benefit to society. Enforcing all this paperwork ties up police resources and thus gives criminals an advantage. It's just politics used to create the impression with the public that the government is improving their quality of life. The only useful purpose registration can serve is as a blueprint if the government later decides on confiscation. It in no way prevents crime."</b> Also at issue in the Canadian government's numbers game are how many long guns and how many gun owners there are in the nation. License applications came in painfully slowly, indicating potentially enormous compliance problems, until a last-minute rush in December. The Justice Department's Austin said the government believes there are 2.2 million gun owners among Canada's 30 million citizens. He said 1.8 million owners applied for licenses by the deadline, a compliance rate of about 80 percent, and he estimated that the remainder will sell, disable or surrender their firearms. Bruce Hutton, a former Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) officer who founded the Law abiding Unregistered Firearms Ass'n to urge civil disobedience of the new law, said the government has, over the past few years, continually lowered its estimates on the numbers of guns and gun owners in Canada. Their goal is obvious--make the compliance numbers look more favorable. "The government is lying to everyone," Hutton said. "About 10 years ago, the RCMP Solicitor General conducted a study and, based on retail and manufacturing figures, estimated the number of gun owners at 4 to 6 million. Since then, the government has revised its estimate on the number of owners downward, to 3.6 million, then 3.3 million and now 2.2 million. I'm sure it's at least twice that number." Citing other RCMP data, the pro-gun Canadian Institute for Legislative Action (CILA) estimates that as many as 7 million people in the country own a total of 21 million firearms. "The government doesn't want people to know this because it will show the licensing plan for the dismal failure that it is," Hutton said. "Registration will be even worse. The law is a farce. Civil disobedience will make it meaningless. It's a travesty, a terrible law." Gary Mauser, a professor and public policy researcher at Simon Frazier University in British Columbia, agrees. "The Firearms Act expands the grounds for warrantless searches, reduces restraints on issuing warrants and requires people to testify against themselves," Mauser said in one report. "Such sweeping police powers . . . authorize police procedures that (would) violate the U.S. Fourth Amendment's protection against warrantless searches and the Fifth Amendment's protections (of) due process." Like similar gun control campaigns in the U.S., supporters of Canada's new law began pushing their agenda amidst the widespread emotional anguish over the murder of 14 women at a Montreal college by a deranged gunman in 1989. Chanting the cheerfully mindless mantras of public safety and fighting crime, Liberal Party stalwarts pushed the new law as benign. If it makes sense to register automobiles, they argued, isn't it reasonable to register guns and gun owners? But applicants for a Canadian driver's license are not asked about their employment and medical history. They are not asked if they've filed for bankruptcy or divorce in the past two years. They are not asked if they've experienced the "breakdown of a significant relationship." Canadians now must reveal such private information and more when they apply for a firearms license. Like many gun control laws in this country, Canada's Firearms Act was peddled as a badly needed "tool" against crime. But the Canadian government's own numbers tell a different story. Sprawled across five time zones, Canada historically has had a very low rate of gun-related crime. Even Austin, the Justice Department spokesman, concedes that gun-related crimes and gun-related deaths, whether homicide, suicide or accidental, have been in steady decline for the past several years. "The government has admitted on three separate occasions in the past few years that since handgun registration was implemented in 1934, not one single crime in Canada has been solved using the national pistol registry," MP Breitkreuz said. On the other hand, Canada's Ministry of Justice, in a document entitled "Self Defense in Canada," acknowledges that firearms are used about 32,000 times a year for self-protection from criminal activity. CILA cites a 1997 study by Mauser, the Simon Frazier University researcher, saying that when animal attacks that have been prevented with guns are added in, the annual self-defense number doubles to 64,000 incidents. "If we remove suicides, which are generally considered to be non-preventable," CILA reports, "approximately 40 lives are saved for every life lost with a firearm in Canada," based on the government's 32,000 annual figure. "Consider that 44 percent of rural Canadian households own firearms, compared to 11 percent in cities. Yet the violent crime rate in Canadian cities is 40 percent higher than in rural areas." But the government has used numbers that indicate a much more serious problem with gun-related crime. The Liberal Party, in particular, has been widely scorned for falsifying such figures to push its political agenda. RCMP Commissioner Philip Murray complained in a letter to the Justice Minister that his department had greatly overstated the number of gun crimes in Canada for 1993. For instance, Justice figures for that year showed 623 gun-related crimes, but Murray said the real number was 73; and of the 333 homicides investigated by Mounties that year, only six involved a firearm. Gunter reported in the Edmonton Journal that "the Department of Justice overestimated the number of gun crimes in the country by nearly 10-fold and exaggerated the cost of treating gunshot wounds by nearly 100-fold . .. ." Gunter believes a 1996 speech by Liberal Party Senator Sharon Carstairs unveiled the real motivation behind Canada's Firearms Act. Sen. Carstairs reportedly told members of the Community Legal Education Ass'n that the new law was a keystone in her party's blueprint to "socially re-engineer Canada." (Carstairs denies making the statement, but she is refuted by two individuals who shared the platform with her when she gave her speech.) "The Liberals believe (the new law) would re-engineer Canada, and especially male gun owners, making its citizens more docile," Gunter wrote. His is the last word here: "When lawmakers trample centuries-old liberties without offering an overwhelming social good in return . . . then respect for the law dies and the rule of law along with it."
I think we’re officially off on the gun control tangent. I could have started a new thread, I suppose, but all the background posts are here. The new gun registration laws here are indeed controversial. Many argue that they were politically motivated, rather than practical, and are unduly burdensome to hunters are rural people who may keep .22s for gopher control or other such purposes. This new registration system was to a significant extent enacted in response to the public outcry after a particularly heinous gun crime in Montreal known here as the Montreal Massacre. Opponents claim that applying these new rules to hunting rifles is onerous, particularly for rural people and does nothing to address the problems it was intended to address. The protestors may in fact have some very valid points. But the protests are not, in the main, about the controls as they relate to handguns. Even before these latest regulations we had comparatively very strict handgun control laws, strict in comparison to the US, that is. They weren’t necessarily strict in comparison to other countries. This is obviously not an impartial piece, but assuming that what they are saying is accurate, I have some sympathy for the lack of compensation. I have no problem in general with changing regulations to improve public safety, although I’m not sure that this part of the law does that. (When they passed the law that said people had to have a licence to drive a car people complained too, but nobody is complaining about that now.) These are weapons that would only have been legally owned by members of gun clubs, and very strict regulations would have already applied to them. This law makes them completely illegal. I’m not sure that that accomplishes much, other than PR. Most people here would back any gun control law, and this recent one may in fact be taking advantage of that for PR reasons. I’m not convinced of that, but I see some indication of it. This is a very different situation than the one in the US though. They’ve backed way off on the penalties and even the fees and are now using softer approaches to encourage people to register. Ummm… this is a bad thing?! Ammunition is not a toy. It’s what makes guns dangerous and absolutely should be closely controlled, IMO. This is a fairly dramatic overstatement, and is twisting the fact to the point where the credibility of this piece becomes questionable. The complaints have come mostly from farmers and rural people and relate to the regulations as they apply to riffles. Very few are complaining about the handgun component. “unprecedented and broad-based call for civil disobedience” This paints a picture that simply isn’t true. “This is remarkable for Canadians, who are exceedingly deferential to the government and the courts.” Again, this simply isn’t true. For me this piece loses its credibility right here. Its rhetoric has strayed into the realm of gross misrepresentation. This must be a piece written for Americans, because they taking things out of context. I presume the cost issue would be a significant factor for Americans, but although it’s mentioned as an additional factor it is not central to this issue. If the new regulations address a real problem and make our country safer, then the slight additional cost is immaterial. If they are more about politics and playing to the polls, then we have a problem with them. Much of the rest of this is just smoke created for an American audience, IMO. This is the issue, but I notice that he doesn’t address it. He only raises it. Does it or doesn’t it make our lives safer? The fact that he makes no convincing argument doesn’t look very good for him, even though I think there is a case to be made that it doesn’t. I’ve never heard of him or his organisation. Looked it up, http://www.lufa.ca/ and he’s obviously a nutbag. There are people who make much better arguments on the subject. Lorne Calvert, the politician mentioned, is the democratic socialist premier of Saskatchewan, a strong liberal in American terminology, and even he is against the new regulations. This is the issue. Not the other rhetoric. Strange comment. My understanding is that this is much more about prevention, not solving crimes after the fact. Protection against animals, sure. You could say that every hunter who hunts in bear country “uses his gun for self-defence.” They are obviously not saying they fire in self-defence. The 32,000 number is strange indeed. It’s meaningless without some clarification. Were these guns used by police, perhaps? This is very deceptive. And your point is …??? Huh?! Methinks someone is trying to conjure up demons that don’t exist. It is somewhat overly dramatic, but you could say that increased gun control, if effective, would “socially re-engineer Canada” and if not effective it would be a significant and unnecessary inconvenience, as well as a waste of money. That’s pretty lame. Gunter is a right-wing editorial columnist. Must have been a slow day when he wrote that. This is very overly dramatic, but it’s not wrong. Will the new regulations produce significant social good? There are some legitimate questions about this, and if the answers prove to be negative it could well cost the liberals a number of rural seats, and they are already on shaky ground in terms of public opinion.
