GTA Tripping: Shooting Guns
It's a pretty common value we all have: killing people is not cool. Strangely enough, I've recently found that playing with the tools to do so, on the other hand, most definitely is cool. Examples: lighting fires, blowing stuff up, driving too fast and juggling chainsaws -- and have you ever swung a mace? Neither have I, but like jetpacks, I don't have to experience it to know it's awesome.
But also like jetpacks, if I had the opportunity to try it, I'd jump at it in a second. Which is why when the opportunity to try shooting guns came up, I promptly performed that usual emotional dance that I do before doing anything worthwhile: a moment of dizzying panic and then, "Yes!"
Target Sports Center in Stouffville is unique in the GTA for being the only shooting range where, for $40 and the price of ammunition, unlicensed people off the street can walk in and shoot guns. Like, real, serious guns.
But Target is more than a gunpowder and lead free-for-all; the club has over 600 members, a Ladies Night and offers various courses. They offer hunting licenses but can also fit people with the legal right to possession of non-restricted fire arms (like a rifle) to possession of restricted firearms (like an Uzi) to (my favourite) transporting a restricted firearm (though, even with this license one still isn't allowed to carry a 9mm around town in the waistband of a pair of sweatpants -- I asked).
In addition to offering a Ladies Night (hosted today's lovely, warmly accommodating and laser-blue-eyed hostess Kim), where women can come in and for $30 fire guns, eat pizza and do whatever it is that women do (as of publication my research on this subject remains incomplete). Couples make up a significant portion of those who come in to blow targets to smithereens, and families seem to make up the rest. There is no age restriction -- as Kim said, if they can see over the firing line they can shoot. Birthdays, anniversaries, corporate team-building functions and bar mitzvahs, we learned, are all occasions for squeezing off a few rounds of ammunition.
But enough about that. Let's get to the cold steel, hot smoke and bristling power.
Before last Saturday afternoon I would have said that guns were something insane that Americans did, like beauty pageants for children and talking about death panels. Being the sort of fellow who says a few words when flushing spiders down the toilet, guns - and the fact that most of them are designed to murder humans - have always terrified me. They were evil; Michael Moore and I stood side-by-side hating Charleton Heston and lauding this country for disallowing handguns in society.
But then I shot one.
The first was a Smith & Wesson M&P 9mm, a half steel/half polymer beaut' that had a pink handle. The trigger-lock that came off the piece was pink also, emblazoned with the logo for Kim's other job, a company called Packing In Pink. It took forever to finally build up the nerve to pull the trigger for the first time. And then, with my eye running down the barrel and beads of sweat running down my forehead I finally let it go with that distinctive POP.
Next up was the CZ 75 SP-01 Shadow, a full steel classic out of the Czech Republic that Kim identified as her favourite gun. It was really heavy in the hand, but the perfect precision you could feel when you pulled the trigger was pure satisfaction.
By the time we got to our third gun - I higher caliber SIG p220 .45, we were happily identifying ourselves as "gun people". We had three more weapons to go through, but the adrenaline, the challenge of hitting the target, and above all, the undeniably sick but absolutely human sense of power we felt had us completely sold on the experience.
Throughout the day Kim spoke in the heightened cadence of any zealot, extolling the virtues of the hobby - her own described as "a gun fetish". She spoke of her lifestyle in the same way that a kung-fu master would: it's not just about combat; it's a way of life. Focusing on that target, our hands shaking from the weight of the gun and the morbid, terrifying thrill, it took several deep breaths before each shot -- Zen, mind-clearing breaths, the higher-caliber gun going off with a deeper BLAM (iii).
That feeling goes with her whenever she leaves the range, said Kim, "That asshole honking at me on the highway doesn't stress me out any more."
But then again, if that asshole knew what was in Kim's trunk, he probably wouldn't be honking in the first place. The next death machine, from Kim's private collection, was her prized Brüger and Thomet TP-9, a beastly looking Swiss military number. This was Petia's favourite gun - a 9mm bullet with a shoulder brace making it deadly accurate and very comfortable to shoot. The magazine holds 30 rounds, but our government requires it to be "pinned" to only allow ten at a time. I hit almost straight bull's-eyes with the TP-9, but the thing that really stood out for me what the smell. Perfectly toasted lead - delicious.
But my favourite gun, perhaps the only gun I ever truly need to shoot again, was the Smith and Wesson .44 Magnum revolver - the "Dirty Harry". The "Magnum" distinction means that the bullet is longer, packing more powder and thus a massive, massive punch. The hand cannon was heavy as hell, and when I finally worked up the guts to pull the trigger for the first time it recoiled almost back over my head and reddened the flesh of my gripping hand.
Last up was the classic Remington 870 12-gauge shotgun. Our range officer for this weapon was a burly guy with a steel handshake. He loaded the gun with five rounds of birdshot for my female travel partner, which kicked her firmly in the shoulder as she sprayed the pellets all over the range. When it was my turn I noticed that the colour of the bullets was different. I asked about it, and the guy smirked, saying that I wasn't supposed to notice. Buckshot, he said, and a little too big for him. Every shot was like donkey kick to the shoulder - it still hurt hours later - but I completely obliterated the target and it felt all kinds of sinister, nasty good.
Photos by Petia Karrin.
Comments (88)
I wonder how many naysaying liberal hipsters will decry guns and your glorification of'em.
Your article basically proves what I've been saying for a long time... shooting a gun is hella fun!
The moment you fire your first shot, you'll be hooked. The adrenaline, sound, power, and balls-out badassery kicks in... it's a great experience and loads of fun.
I took a friend to a gun range, it was her first time seeing/touching a gun, and it was one helluva experience she won't soon forget.
People have to realize that we gun owners aren't all redneck country bumpkins, we don't go around shooting everything we see, we follow the laws to a T, and we try our best to keep things SAFE. That's why we get pissed off when we're the ones who get shafted and screwed over by certain politicians because of the actions of scum criminals who DON'T go through the training nor follow the laws like we do. Punish them more harshly than us!
I am totally on the same page. I was in South Carolina recently and while driving (the only way to get around there) we passed a shooting range and my friend was intent on stopping in at some point to fire some handguns. I was so nervous at first but after the first shot I could feel this energy pulsing through me. Bottom line: It was FUN! I didn't realize you could do this in Toronto.
That's one of the things that I couldn't expect in Toronto,including pigeon meat(...) I've always been scared of any guns..but somehow...I want to do this before leaving Toronto.
I love target shooting, and didn't know that you could do it in Ontario without an FAC. This is just fantastic! I used to do it often when I lived in Florida, and did it a couple weekends ago in Detroit. Guns are only dangerous in the hands of the careless.
Seems people are afraid of things they do not know or understand.
I used to target practice with my father, a bullet maker, when I was younger. My mother, a provincial skeet champion for a few years running.
Target shooting is like any other sport to me. No different than archery, really.
I have no idea how this would be 'creepy' or 'bizarre'. ?
There's also the Sharon Gun Club, which is a little further but also offers an introductory shooting course for beginners:
http://sharongunclub.org/sgc.html
Anyone know of any others in or around the GTA?
reply to kwil: i think what makes it creepy is that guns were not invented for sport, but for war. the fact that some people find it fun to play with something invented for the sole purpose of killing seriously creeps me out, and i will never understand it.
Right, it's creepy, it's horrible, it's wrong -- but then you try it and you have fun despite yourself. This would be the main bullet point (blam!) here.
Jarek: Come, now.
Gregory: Ammunition runs around $10/5 rounds for the larger stuff, around $25-30/50 rounds for the 9mms.
reply to mental:
The main intended purpose for guns were used in combat or for hunting, sure. But in recreational use, it shouldn't be viewed any differently than, for example, someone shooting an arrow at a target.
Archery, knife-throwing, fencing, javelin, darts, and target shooting are all forms of "sport". All with original intended purposes to harm or kill.
Seems like such a skewed view to see the guns as creepy.
As an aside,
Coca Cola was originally intended to be used as a medicine. Let's now rewrite that last tidbit to see if it sounds just as odd:
"The fact that some people find it tasty and refreshing to drink something originally intended for the sole purpose of being sold as a pharmaceutical seriously creeps me out, and I will never understand it."
"waste band" = waist band?
Also: it's not crazy to think that individual gun ownership is generally bad, but that learning to use guns as a tool (ideally without owning any of them or keeping them in your home) is fine.
catherine, i know when and why the internet was first developed, but i also know that the majority of people now aren't logging on to use it to conduct nuclear research.
kwil, i think what's more odd is the fact that you are comparing coca cola to guns. sure, when it was invented 100 or so years ago coca cola might have been sold for "medicinal" use. today it's just a sugary carbonated beverage. when guns were invented, they were intended to kill, today, guns are still intended to kill, or, for others, intended for fun? definitely seems a bit odd to me.
greg, just out of curiosity, in what instances would a gun need to be used as a tool?
arguments aside, i get that you guys have a lot of fun playing with guns. but after hearing about war and tragedy and needless gun violence, i don't understand the thrill and even the motivation behind someone picking up a gun for a good time. that's all i'm saying....
I think I officially am never visiting blogto.com again. Biased left wing authors who are also hypocrites...
goodbye
Wow!
"But then again, if that asshole knew what was in Kim's trunk, he probably wouldn't be honking in the first place"
"I completely obliterated the target and it felt all kinds of sinister, nasty good"
Scary article, dude. It's funny that the only sane sounding person on this entire wall is apparantly "Mental".
@mental: I absolutely hear what you're saying. It's an emotional issue, and I've always been on your side, the side of "get me the heck away from these horrible things" -- but that was the purpose of this trip/article -- to see/experience the other side. Thanks for the comments.
@Kris: It was a scary trip, and elicited some scary (and fun) feelings in us, and the "asshole" thing (a quote from our hostess) was scary too, you're right.
Wicked idea for a post - good call!
Liberals can still love guns and the thrills of wielding precision killing machines... just in a controlled format that doesn't involve keeping them loaded and under our mattresses.
I want to do this! but I wonder how much your trip cost (or would cost someone else) ?
Thanks Corina :)
On our trip we went through six different guns and a lot of ammunition. It probably would have cost us about $250 all together but you could probably spend half that and still experience the whole thing.
I just don't think people should be so frightened of guns themselves. The thing to fear are the people who pick up guns with the intent to kill. The gun does not pick itself up and kill someone.
Target practice is simply a recreational sport. It's not harming anything.
And typically the people who frequent gun clubs and actually use their guns to shoot targets are very sane, normal people, testing the science behind different calibers and makes of bullets or to hone their hand-eye coordination, etc.
It certainly doesn't make me insane to appreciate the sport itself...
Also, I was not comparing cola to guns, I was stating the idiocy behind only seeing something for what its original intended purpose was. I'm frightened thinking what the world would be like if we all decided to be so close-minded.
Just because something dangerous thrills you does not make it a good thing. Guns are so overwhelmingly harmful to society due to the ease of accidental death, let alone those harbouring ill intent. I think Canada's strict gun laws prevent people less stable than the author from becoming gun-toting nuts.
Welcome to my world christobel!
Be thankful he only sneak-chambered a buckshot shell and not a slug, Now THATS got some kick to it
great article as usual
riff piece, chris. meself i love my smith and wesson model L .357/.38 spec. i shoot at targets too. maybe see you there sometime. a friend told me about this blog. nice.
"possession of restricted firearms (like an Uzi)"
UZI is a prohibited weapon, not restricted (even shown in your pic #6
/nitpick
But looks fun, and I think I know what I'm going to do some weekend ..
I can understand target practice or skeet shooting as a sport or for hunting food, but automatic weapons such as an UZI or other fully automatic weapons are made and designed for one thing only to kill people and as many people as possible in a short amount of time. Even the way these weapons are designed and the materials used in the manufacturing of these (automatic) weapons are all geared to making them light easy to conceal and with very little kick back.
Bubba i get what you are saying, but in all fairness an ar-15, c7 or any sort of assault rifle aren't exactly easy to conceal. Are they meant to kill and kill efficiently? Absolutely. But it's not like you could pop one in your day pack and off you go.
And for the pundits, I'd like to think of myself as the stereotypical liberal left winger. I've never voted Conservative, never truly understand the GOP...hell i even went to art school. But i'll challenge anyone to fire a fully automatic AK47 and NOT think it's fun as hell. This is one liberal left winger not giving up their FAC.
Firing guns is "fun as hell" ..... my brother-in-law taught me to shoot various firearms, and I enjoyed it immensely. But what I am saying is that it is a slippery slope, and if guns were more widely available, you'd have more death by crimes of passion and accidental death. It is "fun as hell" to drive 200 km/h on an open road, but one false move and you are dead.
The phrase wasn't exactly used above, but one writer above was implying that "people kill people, guns don't kill people." But guns DO kill people. In the 18 years from 1979 to 1997 there were 30,000 accidental gun deaths in America. Among these, children for God's sake, 214 were unintentional and 1,078 were suicides.
Look at the statistics and open your eyes.
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):
Country / Homicide / Suicide / Other (inc Accident)
USA (2001) / 3.98 / 5.92 / 0.36
Canada ('02)/ 0.4 / 2.0 / 0.04
America's homicide rate by gun is 9.95 times larger, suicide is 2.96 times larger, and other causes including accidents is 9 times larger.
I enjoyed firing guns when trained to do so: loved it. But my social conscience and deliberation upon the facts insure that I will never fire a gun again, and always vote for further restrictions.
I can't believe all the right wing nutjobs on here saying that guns are fun, and they shouldn't be punished because of criminals. Get a clue. You are not being punished. It's not punishment to try and get rid of things who's sole purpose is to kill (arguing that point is simply laughable).
Thankfully, you're a dying breed. Thanks to increasing education levels, the world is finally shifting to the left en masse. So go ahead and rant and rave about your idiotic gun rights, the evil homosexuals, and Obamas plan to kill old people. The world doesn't buy your shit anymore. Your time is over, but you are sure are making a loud march out of town.
I just wanted to say that sometimes we forget about how the entire U.S. right to bear arms was to make sure that the there was not a population that couldn't defend itself or standup to a government gone wrong. It's easy to look at how things are right now and see that as being absurd, but times change, and there is a lot of weird things going in the states with private military and so on. While I don't own a gun and don't plan on it, I think that the argument is very much up for debate and you're not wrong or an idiot to want to own a gun, it's just a different point of view from mine, which merits discussion. Everyone that owns a gun is not some hillbilly that wants to shoot someone, I know my grandfather has one or two guns around his home. I've never seen them and don't know where they are, but they do exist and I don't believe that his gun ownership is a societal risk.
just a note. Both lead photos exhibit wrong or dangerous firearm use. One should not ever fire or point a loaded weapon without looking where it is pointed. One should never take joke photos or poses on a firing line. One should never point a loaded pistol towards somebody even for a Dirty Harry shot.In both cases one should always assume a weapon is loaded and follow the above rules. Guns are not toys. For the record I used to target shoot in competition but got bored and grew scared of the NRA types.
And the always entertaining anecdotal evidence.
"Gothamist was amazed that former Giants star Plaxico Burress pleaded guilty and will face two years in prison for charges related to the November incident where he brought an illegal gun into a Manhattan nightclub and accidentally shot himself because the gun was falling down his pants."
SHORT VERSION
http://torontoist.com/2009/08/elsewhere_in_the_ist-a-verse_32.php
FULL STORY
http://tinyurl.com/kublv2
I'd be interested to know what kind of security and screening precautions they go through before letting anyone in there to shoot for fun.
What I find amusing is that people are "creeped out" by the use of guns for sport. They were designed to kill right? What about Archery? Javelin? Fencing? even Karate and Judo..these are all Martial Arts, developed for Martial purposes, ie war. The fact that guns are also considered sporting is no more creepy than archery, or any of the others, which by the way are all recognised Olympic sports too.
Thanks Christopher for such an unbiased article, too bad some of the commenters can't see past their own biases to at least try it before dismissing it. You and your attractive photog are more than welcome to visit again any time.
@Darren: Thanks so much, you guys were great hosts.
@Scottd: The .44 in the photo is unloaded (as you can see) and my finger is far from the trigger. The gun in Petia's hand also wasn't loaded - safety first!
@Roger: They mentioned refusing people because of being obviously high, but other than that it seemed that pretty much anyone could walk in and give it a go.
Do they allow people to bring in their own guns and/or ammo? Do they at least frisk you at the door (going in OR out)?
Nitpicky, but this post contains a couple of grammatical missteps that are making me too crazy to not comment on:
adrenalin = adrenaline
And also, although "Dirty Hairy" sounds more hilarious, it's actually "Dirty Harry."
Usage people! Adrenalin is alright, as is TheatER (though, 99% of the time I do try to go with the Brit/Can. spellings).
Dirty Hairy though, that's just embarrassing! Cheers.
@Roger: They do allow people to bring their own guns and ammo, but they have to follow the laws strictly. Kim mentioned that if anyone stepped outside the law (for example, bringing in a prohibited weapon, not properly trigger locking, etc) they would call the police immediately.
I think a reply to Sean Galbraith on August 22, 2009 at 5:08 PM with a clarification of finances involved in this visit might be a good idea. Was money exchanged?
People make comparisons to archery, javelins and the martial arts as examples of other now-recreational activities that were originally invented for assault and or killing purposes, for war. True, but with the somewhat exception of the sword, all of those are entirely in the realm of recreation now. Even the epées used for fencing are far-removed from their ancestry. You could argue archery/crossbows are still used for hunting but only by a statistically insignificant cohort.
Guns are the preeminent killing tool now and that makes playing with them for sport too raw for my liking. The comparison with other killing methods now made recreational would only have merit if guns were also used only for recreation. If only! I really, really hope that we get there some day. Just about every young boy likes to make the pow-pow with his thumb and index finger, there's something about blowing off caps and /playing/ at war. Co-opting the current tools of war for sport and amusement damages us as a society. We have to respect the fact that people die, somewhere around the world, every _second_, at the report of a gun. Until we lay them down and stop killing eachother with them we must not joke around and play with something that better demands contemplation and reconsideration.
Forget the guns... I'm curious how much a "Dirty Hairy" costs. Rodeo Clowns and Rusty Trombones are passe.
Just the other day someone shot a cat with a crossbow.
Why are these weapons allowed to be sold without license? For the thrill-seekers who turn it into sport one drunken evening?
I know! And what's with the easily available knives on the streets? I mean, just about anyone can walk into any store and buy a knife without a license and start cutting things! There isn't even a waiting period!
@David: I agree that the second-amendment right to bear arms is very important. One of the founding principles of the United States was the right of the individual to own property. The right to bear arms was introduced so that individuals could protect that right. The government has firearms and does not share any compunctions about their use -- ever notice how well armed police forces are these days?
There are probably more than a dozen objects in my home alone that I could use as implements to kill people with. At least a handful are designed specifically to kill people (some knives and swords). I've learned to fire rifles when I was young (and actually was a pretty good shot). I have never once had the desire or need to use any one of these weapons against a human being. I hope I never will.
Other people are not so fortunate.
Peace is the most noble of desires, and it is certainly one worth defending. Violence is always the last resort, but one that has to be available. It is a cost we pay for desire and ambition.
Great article. Looks like you found a little Hunter S. Thompson inside yourself. It's a little daring and it felt like you weren't holding back. I really liked that. :)
"Looks like you found a little Hunter S. Thompson inside yourself. It's a little daring and it felt like you weren't holding back."
Didn't Hunter Thompson shoot himself in the head?
Yes, Hunter S. Thompson .... another one of those pesky anecdotes, eh?
As I said above:
"In the 18 years from 1979 to 1997 there were 30,000 accidental gun deaths in America. Among these, children for God's sake, 214 were unintentional and 1,078 were suicides.
Look at the statistics and open your eyes.
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):
Country / Homicide / Suicide / Other (inc Accident)
USA (2001) / 3.98 / 5.92 / 0.36
Canada ('02)/ 0.4 / 2.0 / 0.04
America's homicide rate by gun is 9.95 times larger, suicide is 2.96 times larger, and other causes including accidents is 9 times larger."
I disagree completely that using the "current tools of war for sport and amusement damages us as a society".
In the western world, firearms are nearly entirely in the realm of recreation, whether it be for hunting or other sport shooting. The exceptions are for soldiers, and police, who I believe even the nay-sayers have to agree are neccessary, and of course criminals, who you will note do not only use guns but knives and anything else they can get their hands on.
I resent your implication that sport shooters are "playing", if you would look past your own ignorance you would find that gun owners are some of the most serious people around, with a vested interest in obeying the law, and handling their guns safely and correctly if only to retain the privilege of owning them.
Historically, you can look to England when to train their long-bowmen it was decreed that everyone practice weekly, and sporting competitions arose. That society was not "damaged" by the practice of war in a recreational setting. Equally I could point to the Buddhist practice of Kyudo, a meditation/sport of archery, which stems from the military practice, and likewise you would be hard pressed to prove that the Japanese society has been damaged by this, at any time in history.
The shooting sports require concentration, discipline, coordination, and confidence, hardly "damaging" attributes. I think before anyone casts stones or makes bold pronouncements they should investigate further and even give it a try. That's what your reporter has done, and I encourage everyone else out there to do, at least once in their life.
" resent your implication that sport shooters are "playing", if you would look past your own ignorance you would find that gun owners are some of the most serious people around, with a vested interest in obeying the law, and handling their guns safely and correctly if only to retain the privilege of owning them."
hmmmm, yes, i see your point. the pictures at the head of this article definitely convey the seriousness with which recreational shooters regard their "sport". pardon my ignorance.
The problem with all of these stats of accidental gun deaths, is that it's also a parallel argument for banning alcohol with all of the related deaths due to alcohol. I believe that all of those stats more importantly show the lack of responsibility of gun care and respect for life than anything else.
The problem with all of these stats of accidental gun deaths, is that it's also a parallel argument for banning alcohol with all of the related deaths due to alcohol. I believe that all of those stats more importantly show the lack of responsibility of gun care and respect for life than anything else.
Shooting is a hell of a lot of fun. Quit being such whiney pussies.
I love the ad placement at the bottom as I read this, "Front Sight Firearms Training".
It is in a completely different realm to discuss accidental deaths caused by alcohol, autos, tobacco and so on. They are designed for personal enjoyment or utility: guns are designed to kill people and animals. Period.
The same arena includes bows, knives, and other weapons. I would argue that the martial arts should be left out of the discussion unless a weapon is used (such as Kyudo). Firearms are so inherently dangerous, though, in comparison to any other weapon class (excluding military weapons such as missiles), that they do need to be segregated in the law and in society.
In Canadian society, we value "peace, order and good government". I don't want to hear anything about the Second Amendment in America: likewise I do to want to live in America and risk the serious injury or death to me or my family which has been wrought by America's loose gun laws.
The only other weapon that results in a meaningful number of murders, suicides, or accidental deaths would be knives. And I am willing to bet that any of you will fail to find even one example of an accidental death due to a knife in Canada in the past 100 years. If you do, please post a link here, as I'd like to learn about another winner of the Darwin Awards.
Another useful link for this discussion:
http://www.acbr.com/causdeat.htm
Accidents happen. They happen with cars, they happen with stairs. Hell, I'm sure if you looked hard enough, you could find an accidental death from Nerf.
A gun in my hand is no more dangerous than a spork in yours. But God help you if you attack me with that spork... you're gonna have a big hole in you (well, if I had a gun).
I agree, though, about keeping the USA out of this. We aren't them, and they aren't us. Besides, the USA experience is directly countered by that of Switzerland. Statistics are pretty much useless.
Statistics are dangerous in the wrong hands, much like guns. But statistics are useful when you understand the context as well as how the data were collected.
Two points: One, the journalist and photographer are not gun owners, and as such have little sense of the seriousness of gun ownership. So I am not at all surprised that their portrayal of their experience at the range was pure and simple entertainment.
Two, being serious does not preclude enjoyment, which is the base reason that people partake of recreational activities.
I think you are missing the point. Recreational use of firearms in the Western world is one of the most highly regulated activities.
Shooting ranges are so safe, with accidents so rare that millions of dollars in insurance can be obtained for a mere $45 a year. The reason is clear, there is very little risk. That people can enjoy a sport that uses a weapon is not new. That they can use a weapon that is still currently in use world wide is a fact of life, and doesn't deserve the negative biases of those who do not.
Ignorance is forgivable, basing your opinion on ignorance and then promoting that to others is not.
Forget about assault weapons. They have been illegal in Canada since 1978. The Liberals lump everything except bolt action rifles into the category assault weapon and then sell it on the basis of misinformation, the general public's (mostly urban) ignorance about the nature of firearms, a general lack of knowledge about the historic gun culture in Canada and the ancient right of firearms ownership. Liberals would reengineer our society but for the wrong reasons. Laws based on lies have no moral authority and bring the whole question of our law system into disrepute.
holly shit disturber batman. people really responded to your gun post christoph. well done for getting that shit stirred! Charleton Heston still sucks tho. lol. looking forward to the next one!
Darren S -
Your last line sums it up beautifully. Perhaps we should hand a scarlet letter "I" to media types and politicians that misrepresent our firearms heritage. It would go well with the Liberal Party's red ties!
The "I" is for ignorant.
Not much to add to Darren's excellent comments except to note that a firearm is an inanimate object. A tool, in other words. It becomes a weapon only based on the intent of the user. But that is true of any inanimate object - a crossbow, a motor vehicle, a knife, a screwdriver, what have you. Depriving the overwhelming majority of firearms users - those who use them for legitimate purposes, i.e. recreation, hunting, protecting farmland, etc. - in order to keep them out of the hands of criminals - has always been a ludicrous proposition simply because criminals by definition have the means to obtain them illegally. You punish the innocent and bring no harm to the guilty, and all the while lavish the blame on mere objects. As R. Lee Ermey said - It is a hard heart that kills.
MD
You have given a rational explanation of crime and the objects used in the commission of crimes. The problem we face as a society is that individual rights are sacrificed for political gain. The anti-gun lobby including media and politicians do not have the science to back their arguments. Instead we hear ban calls based on fear, hatred of firearms, ignorance of the nature of firearms and their history in Canadian culture, anti-gun propaganda, pseudo-science and outright misinformation.
Fortunately, the majority of Canadians realise the long gun registry is nothing more than an expensive failed experiment. More and more citizens realize too that the call for a handgun ban is not only useless but also nothing more than a ploy to milk votes.
The pro-rights community has banded together to counter these slanderous and hateful statements against legal firearms ownership. We do not ask Canadians to own firearms but we do demand respect for our historic culture and our right of ownership.
This breach between the millions of Canadians that own firearms and those that don't will endure as long as there is a vote to be had by attacking law abiding Canadians. What is wrong with this picture??
The safety level of gun sports speaks for itself. That would explain why you get 3 or 4 million $$ of insurance with your membership in the large organisations. The real problem is the false perception bandied about by the anti-rights politicians and their lobby. Gun sport is safe sport.
Ronald, you say that there is no science to back-up the argument against guns. I guess you didn't read my post or the links I provided early in this discussion. I'll paste is again here for your reference. I agree the gun registry was a fiasco, however.
But I think you make a mistake in saying that we have a right to gun ownership in Canada. There is no "right" to bear arms in Canada along the lines of the Second Amendment in the American Constitution. It is a privilege just as getting a licence to drive a car is a privilege, not a right. We DO have a right to self-defense, but no right to gun ownership.
Further, most gun deaths in Canada (murder, suicide, accidental) are caused by legally owned and licenced firearms (88% in the case of domestic homicide).
http://tinyurl.com/mshd7k
==========
THE SCIENCE
"In the 18 years from 1979 to 1997 there were 30,000 accidental gun deaths in America. Among these, children for God's sake, 214 were unintentional and 1,078 were suicides.
http://tinyurl.com/nglnze
Look at the statistics and open your eyes. Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):
Country / Homicide / Suicide / Other (inc Accident)
USA (2001) / 3.98 / 5.92 / 0.36
Canada ('02)/ 0.4 / 2.0 / 0.04
http://tinyurl.com/3tzce
America's homicide rate by gun is 9.95 times larger, suicide is 2.96 times larger, and other causes including accidents is 9 times larger."
TT -
You are touting the familiar Liberal Party myth.
You should start by reading the English Bill of Rights, 1689. The Bill affirms firearms ownership as a right and not merely an obligation. Blackstone wrote extensively on the right of gun ownership. That right passed to all British colonies and only in the 20th century do we see government trying to negate it.
Yes, I am used to 'scary' stats from the anti-rights people but they do not stand close scrutiny. Acceptable stats would come from the Justice Department, Stats Canada, the FBI, the Center for Disease Control and the European Union. U.K. stats are invariably tainted. Also, stats without citation and taken out of context have no caveat. For instance your U.S. quotes - children, up to 21 yrs. & how many of those were crime related? and on it goes.
I am so glad that another person has finally realized that shooting a gun can be fun and SAFE! Just to make a quick note though, the Ladies Night at the range is $50, not $30.
RW, I am interested to read more about the English Bill of Rights and Blackstone, but it would be really helpful in your post if you could quote and/or provide links as I do. Don't bother, I will look it up myself. And did you mean to say, "a right and not merely a privilege"? It is apparently an "obligation" in Switzerland. But I will read up and, if you are correct, I may have to restate my position a bit.
Samantha, as I stated early in this thread, I thoroughly enjoy shooting a gun. And I completely support stricter gun control. These two are not mutually exclusive.
I should HOPE shooting at a firing range is safe. It is everywhere outside of a controlled environment where it is dangerous.
I just read all the sections in the English Bill of Rights (1689) relating to arms. I recall now reading this at university for my first year Political Science survey course.
http://tinyurl.com/dgodrk
I'd like a person with a background in history to correct me if I am wrong, but the bill is in reaction to the oppression put upon protestants by the Papist King James II. Papists were allowed to bear arms and others were unfairly disarmed. So it is to bring equality into the issue.
"Disarming Protestants, &c.
By causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law."
The bill goes on to say that Protestants (equally with all other Subjects) may bear arms "as allowed by law". This means that parliament can put limits on arms as long as these restrictions are applied equally.
"Subjects’ Arms.
That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law."
Due to the dangerous nature of guns and the unnecessary harm and death caused by them in contemporary Canadian society, they need to be strictly regulated. The Bill of Rights does not prohibit parliament from making laws further restricting gun ownership, and certainly does not assert a fundamental right to bear arms.
But I'd like to read Blackstone on the subject as well.
Yes, my statement stands - "a right instead of merely an obligation". The "right" has existed in common law since 1689 and only under recent Liberal governments has it come under serious attack. What I find disturbing as an historian is that Liberals are willing to present an alternate history of Canada bereft of facts contrary to their social reengineering agenda. It's a fascinating subject. Enjoy.
Ronald Wilson, thank you for putting me on to Blackstone as well. You have done me a great service by helping me tighten up my argument immensely. To borrow your loaded (pun intended) phrasing, it seems that you are "touting" the familiar pro-gun "myth". You should go back and re-read both he Bill and Blackstone in the original.
1) The Bill gives all Subjects the EQUAL right to bear arms AS ALLOWED BY LAW. Law may restrict arms.
2) Blackstone did not write "extensively on the right of gun ownership", he only very briefly touches on it (unless you can provide me with other citations).
http://tinyurl.com/m3mxl7
3) Blackstone explicitly names the right to bear arms as an AUXILIARY RIGHT that exists only to support the ABSOLUTE RIGHTS, "to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights, of personal security, personal liberty, and private property." In today's society in Canada, all three of those rights are reasonably protected by law enforcement and the courts: there is no need for the private ownership of firearms except in very narrowly defined cases.
"The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."
4) You say I offer 'scary' stats implying they are not scary, and further that they are not accurate because they do not come from "the Justice Department, Stats Canada, the FBI, the Center for Disease Control" and so on. My first links are from a report by the University of Michigan Health Center, and ever stat is fully cited to their source which are all the very best data available worldwide. Period. Read the report and follow the citations, please.
5) And then the eventual straw-man argument: "For instance your U.S. quotes - children, up to 21 yrs. & how many of those were crime related? and on it goes." Your reading comprehension is very low, or you are trying to use a cheap rhetorical trick to refute my rock-solid argument. I never said children up to 21 years old, I said children. In the report is says children 0-19 years old. And how many were crime related? NONE!. That's one of my main points! No matter how safe you try to be, the looser the gun laws, the more accidental and suicide deaths you will have by innocent, law abiding, careful people. After the 1,078 suicides and 214 accidental deaths, there were a further 1,990 homicides ... of children.
http://www.med.umich.edu/yourchild/topics/guns.htm
The 3,385 firearms-related deaths for age group 0-19 years breaks down to:
214 unintentional
1,078 suicides
1,990 homicides
83 for which the intent could not be determined
20 due to legal intervention
I now see that I have both all the statistics and the legal history on my side in the discussion over strict firearms laws.
TT
It is comforting that after a couple of hours you are now an expert on the development of common law over the last 1,000 years. Suffice to say, the Supreme Court will eventually rule on the rights issue.
Your child stats are insignificant given you are talking about 214 accidental deaths out of a population of 305 million. How can homicides not be crime related?
Canadians are frustrated by the failures attached to the Firearms Act. The Act is directed at a law abiding population with minimal impact on criminals.
Canada banned assault weapons 30 years ago. Handguns are practically banned as those legally owned are stringently controlled and have been registered since 1934. Legal firearms owners have passed criminal screening, training courses and comply with strict standards for storage.
Liberal gun control has failed on every front and is a scandal in terms of cost/cost overrun, in terms of failing to stem violent gang related gun crime, in terms of not targeting criminals but rather hassling sportsmen in their efforts to milk votes from uninformed urbanites, in terms of the secretive and deceptive manner in which the Liberals pursued it and finally in not stemming the flow of cross border smuggling. We do not need more of a failed program.
Only the Conservatives have talked about the Auditor General monitoring the program on a regular basis. There is good reason the Liberals refused to do a cost/benefit analysis of the gun control program as required by their own Treasury Board rules.
Bad law not only discredits Parliament but also undermines respect for the rule of law.
P.S. You will never see the Liberals stand in a nationally televised debate and defend their Firearms Act. That fact alone speaks volumes against their program.
For the life of me I can't understand why or how liberals think that by disarming American citizens it is going to make them safer, it's almost as if they want the criminal vote, they will be able to come in our homes and do as they please to us, rapists, murderers, thieves, any sane/ semi smart person can see that felons, (who don't obey the law in the first place, hence FELONS) will not be disarmed. They will continue to keep their firearms, that are untraceable, and be able to do as the please to us law abiding citizens. I for one will not fall prey to any man who decides he wants to come into my home to do harm to me or my family, so I say to all liberals who think logic in their argument to please tell me, who is it you are trying to help, normal law abiding citizens, or felons who want to take my property or life. Your thinking that by taking our guns it is going to make America safer, you and I know that is not the truth, just be honest and tell us what is really on your mind?
Guns do not kill, as pencils do not misspell words, Any object can be used to commit murder. Felons are going to be able to get guns, just as they are able to get cocain, or marijuana, or crystal meth, they will be able to get them, I live in a place where the nearest police department, which is the state police dept. is 30 miles away, and it has 8 police officers to cover an area that is way to vast. It may take up to 20 minutes to get to me. So I don't see them being able to stop my murder, but I would just be another statistic to add to the liberal we hate guns so we took them act! NO! You can't take my right to live, to protect myself, your social justice seems to be better for the criminal than for the law abiding citizen, well I guess that when you make it illegal for me to own guns I will then fit into your protecting criminals act.
RW, I do not claim to be an expert on the development of common law. I merely read what you (an historian) suggested I read. What the Bill and what Blackstone say on bearing arms is very brief and pretty simple. Nobody needs to be an expert in common law to comprehend it. If there is more I should read, I'd be grateful to you to cite it for me. Glibly telling me the Supreme Court will eventually rule on it does not persuade me. Tell me where to find the argument you profess, or make it yourself.
P.S. This issue does not have to be a partisan PC/ Liberal debate and I haven't made it one on this board.
TT
Fact is the Supreme Court will rule on gun rights. Therefore we can agree there are two camps in this debate - pro-rights and anti-gun. One has nothing to lose by giving up rights they do not care about while the other camp is fighting with everything to lose as they defend their culture and way of life. You should have read a little further on what Gladstone had to say about private property. How do you adequately compensate citizens for the loss of their culture? Think about that.
Unfortunately, the issue of gun control was made a political issue when the Liberals chose to make it a vote getter. For the first time in my 66 years I will be voting for the preservation of personal rights and private property. Issues come and go but rights are forever and rights certainly trump party loyalties and transitory issues of a temporary importance. The political left in Canada has chosen to suppress private firearms ownership. That leaves we who own firearms and those that derive their livelihood from related sport industries no other choice than to vote Conservative. The country is divided on gun control and the Liberal approach. Most urbanites are for banning all firearms while most rural Canadians are against bans. I say most because informed persons know the futility of bans. Look at Toronto with no Conservative MPs. Remove the demand and there is no problem. That is the Canadian reality.
The issue is the suppression of violent crime and the gangs that are to blame for it. Guns are not the problem. Poor social conditions, lack of opportunity and poor education are the roots of violent crime. Gun ban calls are a red herring and have no validity and that IS the historical record.
the second amendment makes it pretty clear, The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects a right to keep and bear arms from infringement by the federal government, including federal enclaves and Washington, D.C.[1] The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.
well in America anyways, where I am!, And they continue to try and say that it does not mean what it means, A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a FREE State, the right of the People to KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There is nothing to discuss!!, LIBS want to take my right as an AMERICAN away to help keep me and others safe and that argument holds no water we all know it, look the lefts, so called social justices are all failed policies, they have been in every communist society, and it will be no different here, everything is just a front, take the racist Van Jones for instance how is destroying thousands of good jobs, jobs that are already putting people to work, going to help the social injustices that he so loudly harps about on a daily basis. And he claims to be making jobs, which is like I said a front, we know that what he wants is to communize this country along with the rest of the administration, but first they must disarm the right wing terrorists to implement our plan!!
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There is nothing to discuss!!, LIBS want to take my right as an AMERICAN away to help keep me and others safe and that argument holds no water we all know it, look the lefts, so called social justices are all failed policies, they have been in every communist society, and it will be no different here, everything is just a front, take the racist Van Jones for instance how is destroying thousands of good jobs, jobs that are already putting people to work, going to help the social injustices that he so loudly harps about on a daily basis. And he claims to be making jobs, which is like I said a front, we know that what he wants is to communize this country along with the rest of the administration, but first they must disarm the right wing terrorists to implement their plan!!
Heath, you do realise BlogTO is a site in Canada, and this post is about guns in Canada, right? The Second Amendment has no standing here.
Chris, we have had lots of positive response from this blog. Many recent visitors to the range have cited this blog as the inspiration for thier visit, or at least the source for their information on us. Thanks again for such a positive write up.
Two things to mention: 1. our new website is finally up and running, www.targetsportscanda.com not the other link you have in the blog, and 2. you are welcome to come back for our Glock Day Open House, where we are featuring Glocks and anyone is welcome. For only $30 any visitor can shoot 3 different Glock pistols, and be entered in our draw for either a Glock pistol or a day at the range for 6 people. Extra tickets are available for both the draw and to shoot more, and we always have a big barbeque for the visitors too. Glock Day is Sunday Oct 18th.
Sorry I forgot to mention that our open-house events are always in support of a charity of some sort. In the last year and a half we have raised approx $13000 for either the Canadian Cancer Society's Breast Cancer Awareness or for the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation. This fall, Smith & Wesson Day (Sept 20th), we raised $3500 for The Military Families Fund, and we are hoping for an even better turn-out for Glock Day.
Thanks again Darren S, Manager Target Sports
View More Events
Suggest an Event
Join the blogTO Flickr group
Join the blogTO YouTube Group
RSS