Author Topic: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0  (Read 187742 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 572,490
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,976
  • Keep 'em rolling.
    • The job.
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1325 on: August 27, 2020, 18:59:41 »
Only one civilian in Canada is licensed to legally carry a handgun at a place other that a shooting range. 

Norm Gardner used to carry. Saw some action with it too.

Not sure if he still has that "protection-of-life" permit.
In any war, there are two tremendous tasks. That of the combat troops is to fight the enemy. That of the supply troops is to furnish all the material to insure victory. The faster and farther the combat troops advance against the foe, the greater becomes the battle of supply. EISENHOWER

Offline Donald H

  • Banned
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 1,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 329
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1326 on: August 27, 2020, 20:25:45 »
Hold up... Are you insinuating that those that currently own or would like to own an AR platform, for what ever legal reason, have some sort of social ill ?

That's a pretty loaded question Halifax Tar but I feel that I shouldn't avoid answering.

In my opinion there are exceptions to the rule I've mentioned but there's little doubt that some owners of AR-15's are seen proudly standing on a street corner in full camo with their AR-15. Or, as was the case in the US recently, extreme rightist dressed up the same with their AR-15's on the steps of a government building in the US. I have an issue with that kind of behaviour and I surely don't want to ever see it in Canada. That was all apparently quite legal in America. This is behavour I see as quite distinct from seeing a hunter standing in a duck blind, for instance, with a shotgun and dressed in his camo gear.

And now fwiw, a 17 year old murders two people on the street and is seen walking by the police with his AR-15 in tow.
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.
~Mark Twain.

Offline Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 85,770
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,155
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1327 on: August 27, 2020, 22:15:13 »

Or, as was the case in the US recently, extreme rightist dressed up the same with their AR-15's on the steps of a government building in the US. I have an issue with that kind of behaviour and I surely don't want to ever see it in Canada. That was all apparently quite legal in America.
Under current Canadian law you won't see this.  The differences between Canadian and US gun laws,  gun owners and gun culture are as different as apples and bricks.  Lawful, licensed Canadian firearms owners are some of the best behaved, safest and socially responsible citizens. It's unfair and dishonest to equate and compare them to the types of behaviors and personalities seen in a small and radical segment of the American firearms community.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2020, 06:00:51 by Haggis »
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Offline QV

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 17,695
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 640
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1328 on: August 27, 2020, 22:23:03 »

And now fwiw, a 17 year old murders two people on the street and is seen walking by the police with his AR-15 in tow.

Allegedly.  It may be determined to be self defence. 

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 373,556
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,565
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1329 on: August 27, 2020, 23:02:13 »
Quote from: Donald H


And now fwiw, a 17 year old murders two people on the street and is seen walking by the police with his AR-15 in tow.

Why would they have stopped him?
No probable cause to. They didn't see him shoot anyone and carrying a rifle isn't illegal.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2020, 23:21:47 by Jarnhamar »
There are no wolves on Fenris

Online Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 106,800
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,592
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1330 on: August 27, 2020, 23:15:45 »
>we lack the social ills

All the less reason to prohibit firearm ownership by ordinary people here.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 58,078
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,114
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1331 on: August 28, 2020, 11:29:27 »
That's a pretty loaded question Halifax Tar but I feel that I shouldn't avoid answering.

In my opinion there are exceptions to the rule I've mentioned but there's little doubt that some owners of AR-15's are seen proudly standing on a street corner in full camo with their AR-15. Or, as was the case in the US recently, extreme rightist dressed up the same with their AR-15's on the steps of a government building in the US. I have an issue with that kind of behaviour and I surely don't want to ever see it in Canada. That was all apparently quite legal in America. This is behavour I see as quite distinct from seeing a hunter standing in a duck blind, for instance, with a shotgun and dressed in his camo gear.

And now fwiw, a 17 year old murders two people on the street and is seen walking by the police with his AR-15 in tow.

I appreciate your reply and I don't think the question is loaded unless you have an incorrect preconceived notion of firearms owners. 

I think you need to educate your self on firearms in Canada, the laws (over time up to their current state) and their employment in crimes VS legal uses.  You seem to be a very typical  non-firearm owning Canadian who uses occurrences and happenings in another country as reason to punish limit law abiding Canadians who have nothing to do with what happens in another country.

I have stated repeatedly on this and other sites I have no issues with firearms regulation but they must be fact and science/engineering based, not on the unreasonable and unfounded fears of soccer moms.

What does that 17 year old in the USA have to do with Canadian firearms legislation ?
« Last Edit: August 28, 2020, 11:34:16 by Halifax Tar »
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline Donald H

  • Banned
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 1,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 329
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1332 on: August 28, 2020, 14:04:40 »
I appreciate your reply and I don't think the question is loaded unless you have an incorrect preconceived notion of firearms owners.

Lots of questions so I'll try to answer as best I can. 

Quote
I think you need to educate your self on firearms in Canada, the laws (over time up to their current state) and their employment in crimes VS legal uses.  You seem to be a very typical  non-firearm owning Canadian who uses occurrences and happenings in another country as reason to punish limit law abiding Canadians who have nothing to do with what happens in another country.

I'm quite familiar with firearms, had used them for many years, and became very proficient in their use. Fwiw, I don't now and I don't own firearms anymore. Ithink that would place me in the top third of Canadians at least on the use of firearms.  And now by taking part on this thread I'm learning more about Canada's laws. That which is happening in the US is something we don't want to happen in Canada and that's good reason to refer to it.

Quote
I have stated repeatedly on this and other sites I have no issues with firearms regulation but they must be fact and science/engineering based, not on the unreasonable and unfounded fears of soccer moms.

Soccer moms are the same as all Canadian moms and their opinions are just as legitimate as all dads. If upwards of 70% (?) of Canadians are supportive of our current laws, and more that are proposed then your point could be right on my lack of education, and especially theirs.

The Americans out standing on Main street with their AR-15's deserves closer consideration and a closer look. It's not the AR-15 that's going to kill somebody, it's the person with the gun that's possibly go berserk and kill.  Same as the gun lying on the table example that we're all heard of.

So it's mostly the social ills of that country that are the problem and therefore, IMO, they aren't legitimately of sound enough mind to be allowed to carry their AR-15 on Main street. Their track record tells us so. Consequently, there's good reason to forbid socially unfit Americans to own assault rifles.

And now to how that applies to Canada. We can say we're different but we know in fact that we have some similar bad apples in the barrel too. This is, IMO a good reason to not allow them the type of weapons that are an encouragement of that behaviour.

The legitimate AR-15 owner or wannabe owner in Canada must pay the price of the American experience due to the opinions of those moms (and dads). Therefore, perhaps what is needed is a re-education of the majority of Canadians in order to convince them they are wrong.

Do those Canadians who want to own AR-15's possess the sincerity and compassion it would take to re-educate those millions of soccer moms? I think the first obstacle against accomplishing that would be to not narrow it down to just 'soccer' moms

Quote
What does that 17 year old in the USA have to do with Canadian firearms legislation?

In fact everything. America doesn't have a monopoly on mentally ill 17 year olds that are fascinated with the prospect of killing somebody with their gun. Although admittedly most likely less on a comparable per capita basis. The only thing lacking in Canada is the easy access to the AR-15 with which to do the job efficiently.

- Staff edit to fix quote box.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2020, 14:21:34 by garb811 »
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.
~Mark Twain.

Offline Donald H

  • Banned
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 1,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 329
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1333 on: August 28, 2020, 14:21:27 »
Why would they have stopped him?
No probable cause to. They didn't see him shoot anyone and carrying a rifle isn't illegal.

It's possible the police didn't see him shoot anybody and so the bottle of water the police gave him may not have been meant as a reward. But two people were murdered and a couple of reasons why are that the kid was mentally ill and he exercized his right to carry his AR-15 on Main street.

In Canada we can't eliminate the first possibility completely because we can only succeed partially with more socially responsible government aid to the mentally ill.
Dealing with the AR-15 on Main street is much more easily dealt with. My reply to Halifax Tar explains my feelings in more detail.
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.
~Mark Twain.

Online Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 186,885
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,398
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1334 on: August 28, 2020, 14:32:37 »
It's possible the police didn't see him shoot anybody and so the bottle of water the police gave him may not have been meant as a reward. But two people were murdered and a couple of reasons why are that the kid was mentally ill and he exercized his right to carry his AR-15 on Main street.

In Canada we can't eliminate the first possibility completely because we can only succeed partially with more socially responsible government aid to the mentally ill.
Dealing with the AR-15 on Main street is much more easily dealt with. My reply to Halifax Tar explains my feelings in more detail.

This is purely anecdotal on my part. I literally know dozens of people that own ARs and other types of firearms.  Some of them are of the very best shots in Canada and the CAF.  None of them are mentally ill.   At all.  A few I would consider to be gun nuts and all about morale patches and wear what they think is SOF kit etc etc.  But they don't worry me, they are just a bit too much enthusiastic.  The majority are professionals though. 
Optio

Offline Donald H

  • Banned
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 1,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 329
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1335 on: August 28, 2020, 15:12:29 »
This is purely anecdotal on my part. I literally know dozens of people that own ARs and other types of firearms.  Some of them are of the very best shots in Canada and the CAF.

I'm not unaware of a legitimate reason to own AR-15's, and even a legitimate need, as you're suggesting. One who needs to be highly proficient with the use of the particular weapons can't be so without using it frequently. Or at least that was my experience with other firearms.

It's still the illegitimate factor that we need to be concerned about.

Have you noticed that an often heard talking point from those who oppose any gun control measures, sometime old existing measures and sometimes new proposed measures, very often draw a comparison to how different Canadians are to Americans? Or perhaps more accurately, how different Canada is to America?
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.
~Mark Twain.

Offline Retired RCN

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 746,262
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,189
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1336 on: August 28, 2020, 15:38:13 »
I'm not unaware of a legitimate reason to own AR-15's, and even a legitimate need, as you're suggesting. One who needs to be highly proficient with the use of the particular weapons can't be so without using it frequently. Or at least that was my experience with other firearms.

It's still the illegitimate factor that we need to be concerned about.

Have you noticed that an often heard talking point from those who oppose any gun control measures, sometime old existing measures and sometimes new proposed measures, very often draw a comparison to how different Canadians are to Americans? Or perhaps more accurately, how different Canada is to America?

So service rifle and sport shooting is not a legitimate reason to own a AR15? It was for many years until the government decided it wasn't and banned them by OIC.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Online Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 106,800
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,592
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1337 on: August 28, 2020, 17:05:16 »
WTF is this "legitimate reason" bullshit?  Do I need a legitimate reason to own a muscle car?  A pair of skis?  A leather BDSM suit for dungeon night?
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline dapaterson

    Halfway to being an idiot-savant.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 545,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,539
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1338 on: August 28, 2020, 17:08:27 »
Do I need a legitimate reason to own a muscle car?  A pair of skis?  A leather BDSM suit for dungeon night?

Well, if your BDSM hangout needs you to commute via car, then ski overland to get to it, then yes.

Putting the *** in acerbic.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 373,556
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,565
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1339 on: August 28, 2020, 18:53:15 »
I'm not unaware of a legitimate reason to own AR-15's, and even a legitimate need, as you're suggesting.

Out of curiosity is it AR15s you don't think is I should own?
Semi-automatic firearms?
Black "military looking" firearms?

What criteria do you use to define what's dangerous and what's not in a firearm?
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Donald H

  • Banned
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 1,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 329
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1340 on: August 28, 2020, 20:22:00 »
WTF is this "legitimate reason" bullshit?  Do I need a legitimate reason to own a muscle car?  A pair of skis?  A leather BDSM suit for dungeon night?

How about some sort of screening of those who wish to own a firearm to ensure they have a legitimate reason?
I would refer to the 17 year old mentally ill kid who just murdered two people. In my opinion he acted like he had just fulfilled a dream he had and that's got something to do with his past record of misbehaving.

I wonder if anybody ever asked him why he wanted to own an AR-15? He probably would have been quite truthful that it wasn't to shoot targets or small animals.   That's my opinion on WTF this is all about Brad.

 :cheers:
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.
~Mark Twain.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 272,805
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,335
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1341 on: August 28, 2020, 20:46:54 »
A legitimate reason can be to exercise one’s rights to the maximum legal extent possible.

That’s why a rifle such as the Remington 700 PCR Enhanced is still legal in Canada.

Offline Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 85,770
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,155
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1342 on: August 28, 2020, 22:12:38 »
In response to:
I'm not unaware of a legitimate reason to own AR-15's, and even a legitimate need, as you're suggesting.

and

Quote
How about some sort of screening of those who wish to own a firearm to ensure they have a legitimate reason?

When the AR-15 was still restricted, Canadians had to already justify owning one and that justification was usually competition or target shooting which were legitimate uses up until May 1st, 2020 when they magically weren't.  As a lawful Canadian gun owner you should know that. 

The same could be said for your statements regarding carrying versus transporting a handgun. As a licensee you should know that, too.

Why should one have to justify owning an AR-15 any more than any other firearm? Many hunting rifles are far more powerful and, therefore, more lethal than a legally owned 5 round AR-15.


Have you noticed that an often heard talking point from those who oppose any gun control measures, sometime old existing measures and sometimes new proposed measures, very often draw a comparison to how different Canadians are to Americans? Or perhaps more accurately, how different Canada is to America?

Yes and this is why, again, your comparisons of a lawful Canadian AR-15 owner and a 17 year-old American kid is disingenuous.  Different societies, gun cultures and vastly different gun laws make that comparison invalid.  Someone doing what that kid did - even in an open carry state like Wisconsin -  is breaking more than just gun laws.  More laws wouldn't have stopped him.

Maybe a better solution than creating more laws for criminals to ignore would be to apply and enforce exiting laws more consistently and effectively?

Lastly:

One who needs to be highly proficient with the use of the particular weapons can't be so without using it frequently. Or at least that was my experience with other firearms.

One of the left's favourite talking heads on gun policy, Wendy Cukier of the Coalition for Gun Control (Confiscation?) has stated that lawful gun owners are more dangerous than criminals because they are proficient.  Are we to infer that you believe civilians should not be proficient or that such proficiency leads to criminality?
« Last Edit: August 29, 2020, 09:03:18 by Haggis »
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Offline Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 85,770
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,155
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1343 on: August 28, 2020, 22:13:17 »


That’s why a rifle such as the Remington 700 PCR Enhanced is still legal in Canada.
...for now.
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 272,805
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,335
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1344 on: August 28, 2020, 22:15:38 »
...for now.

Sadly, you may be right, Haggis.

Offline Eaglelord17

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 21,315
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 409
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1345 on: August 29, 2020, 06:23:22 »
Lots of questions so I'll try to answer as best I can. 

I'm quite familiar with firearms, had used them for many years, and became very proficient in their use. Fwiw, I don't now and I don't own firearms anymore. Ithink that would place me in the top third of Canadians at least on the use of firearms.  And now by taking part on this thread I'm learning more about Canada's laws. That which is happening in the US is something we don't want to happen in Canada and that's good reason to refer to it.

Soccer moms are the same as all Canadian moms and their opinions are just as legitimate as all dads. If upwards of 70% (?) of Canadians are supportive of our current laws, and more that are proposed then your point could be right on my lack of education, and especially theirs.

The Americans out standing on Main street with their AR-15's deserves closer consideration and a closer look. It's not the AR-15 that's going to kill somebody, it's the person with the gun that's possibly go berserk and kill.  Same as the gun lying on the table example that we're all heard of.

So it's mostly the social ills of that country that are the problem and therefore, IMO, they aren't legitimately of sound enough mind to be allowed to carry their AR-15 on Main street. Their track record tells us so. Consequently, there's good reason to forbid socially unfit Americans to own assault rifles.

And now to how that applies to Canada. We can say we're different but we know in fact that we have some similar bad apples in the barrel too. This is, IMO a good reason to not allow them the type of weapons that are an encouragement of that behaviour.

The legitimate AR-15 owner or wannabe owner in Canada must pay the price of the American experience due to the opinions of those moms (and dads). Therefore, perhaps what is needed is a re-education of the majority of Canadians in order to convince them they are wrong.

Do those Canadians who want to own AR-15's possess the sincerity and compassion it would take to re-educate those millions of soccer moms? I think the first obstacle against accomplishing that would be to not narrow it down to just 'soccer' moms

So 70% of Canadians don't have a clue about our firearms laws, I am failing to see your point? Just because something is popular doesn't mean it is right. If I was to say 90% of people think that wearing a mask is stupid, and the 10% that don't are experts, who are you going to listen to the 90% or the experts? When the general public becomes actually aware of our laws, and has actual exposure to firearms I will take them a bit more seriously. Some peoples opinions aren't as legitimate as others. A doctor's opinion on health is more legitimate than mine. However firearms are one of the few things I actually have a decent amount of knowledge on, enough that at one point I turned down a job to work at the RCMP firearms lab.

The AR-15 isn't a super deadly murder machine, any more than any other rifle is. The USA has the same long gun (which a AR-15, AK-47, etc. are long guns) death rate as Canada despite significantly less controls on them. There was a kid in the USA who shot up his school in I believe Texas with a shotgun and revolver killing 14 a few years ago. That is one of the deadliest school shootings in the USA and a significantly higher kill count than most who use ARs or AKs.

Banning specific firearms is stupid. If you need to have legislation you need to be able to justify it though science. If it is the semi-automatic part which is scary, then all semi-automatics are equally scary. Our firearms act attempted to do that with the prohibited, restricted, and non-restricted classes where they listed what features put them in certain categories. Then they basically said we did this wrong, we shall also ban these specific firearms just because we said so. The AR-15 for example with a 20" barrel should be a non-restricted firearm in this country, but only poor legislation has made it what it is today.

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 179,560
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,620
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1346 on: August 29, 2020, 12:25:13 »
My intention is not to ignore your points in favour of relaxing handgun laws, but to narrow it down to a managable level of debate. And so this:

And so in my opinion, all roads lead to at least one of those destinations, effectively making it legal to carry a handgun anywhere one should choose and to carry it at any time. Thereby turning Canada into the equivalent of the US on handgun laws.

 :cheers:

You realize that Canada used to allow concealed carry far more than it does now? It's a fallacy that guns are not a part of our culture, there are more licensed gun owners in Canada, than people playing organized hockey. I will argue the reason the Libs are pushing gun control is due to the steady rise in gun ownership in Canada and that the increase is been driven by new Canadians and women. (Note women are also a major force in new gun ownership in the US as well)  Also in the US the CCW permit holders have a incredibly small rate of indictment for offenses, in and around the 1% rate for the majority of jurisdictions. The majority of homicides in the US are gang and drug related and over half of them are concentrated in 2% of the counties.     

Offline Donald H

  • Banned
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 1,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 329
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1347 on: August 29, 2020, 13:32:10 »
So 70% of Canadians don't have a clue about our firearms laws, I am failing to see your point? Just because something is popular doesn't mean it is right. If I was to say 90% of people think that wearing a mask is stupid, and the 10% that don't are experts, who are you going to listen to the 90% or the experts? When the general public becomes actually aware of our laws, and has actual exposure to firearms I will take them a bit more seriously. Some peoples opinions aren't as legitimate as others. A doctor's opinion on health is more legitimate than mine. However firearms are one of the few things I actually have a decent amount of knowledge on, enough that at one point I turned down a job to work at the RCMP firearms lab.

That's a very dangerous argument to make in a democratic country Eagleford, but I have to be honest and say that I respect it and understand that there are certain circumstances in which it's quite legitimate. The debate over capitol punishment is another example of where the same argument could be legitimate.

Quote
The AR-15 isn't a super deadly murder machine, any more than any other rifle is.

It's a copy of a design that was meant for doing just that if we can say that it was designed for killing people instead of it being a murder weapon. With my limited knowledge I don't know of any other long gun that is better suited to killing people. (that needs to be qualified of course)

Quote
The USA has the same long gun (which a AR-15, AK-47, etc. are long guns) death rate as Canada despite significantly less controls on them.

I didn't know that. But I may be misquoting you because you added another sentence: "more than any other rifle.'

Quote
There was a kid in the USA who shot up his school in I believe Texas with a shotgun and revolver killing 14 a few years ago. That is one of the deadliest school shootings in the USA and a significantly higher kill count than most who use ARs or AKs.

I'm not familiar with the particular shooting offhand but I'll assume he didn't use an AR-15. If that's true then it would be the exception for school shootings in the US.

Quote
Banning specific firearms is stupid. If you need to have legislation you need to be able to justify it though science. If it is the semi-automatic part which is scary, then all semi-automatics are equally scary. Our firearms act attempted to do that with the prohibited, restricted, and non-restricted classes where they listed what features put them in certain categories. Then they basically said we did this wrong, we shall also ban these specific firearms just because we said so. The AR-15 for example with a 20" barrel should be a non-restricted firearm in this country, but only poor legislation has made it what it is today.

I respectfully disagree. GM makes pickup trucks and that's not questioned as legitimate. If they started making pickup trucks with a 50 cal. machine mounted in the bed of the truck, that wouldn't be legitimate in my opinion. AR-15's are a copy of a weapon that was designed to kill people. (I am assuming that's correct) Therefore I consider the AR-15 to not be a legitimate weapon on Canada's streets.

There could be many different long guns that are incorrectly designated as not being legal for civilians to own. That will hopefully be sorted out over time. But at the same time there are in my opinion quite sensible laws being proposed and adopted. For instance, I owned a couple of Remington 1100's and from experience I would say that they are legitimate shotguns to own. They're a lot different from a weapons that was designed to kill people and is super efficient at doing so.

- Staff edit to fix quote box.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2020, 13:48:50 by garb811 »
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.
~Mark Twain.

Offline Fabius

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 5,615
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 75
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1348 on: August 29, 2020, 13:56:46 »
I would suggest that tyranny of the majority is a clear and present danger that democracies need to be cognizant of...

The Remington 1100 is a 12 gauge gas operated shotgun, designed in the early 1960s.
The Beretta M4 is a 12 gauge gas operated shotgun, designed in 1998 for the US Military.
Both fire the same ammo, both are capable of similar ammo capacities, both can be similar length and weight with mods.

Do you consider them both legitimate or not? Its an honest question as I have no idea how you can say that this specific firearm was designed for killing people and is not legitimate while this one is not designed for killing people and is legitimate?

Note here that we are not talking about belt fed fully automatic weapons, but rather firearms like the above shotguns, the Lee Enfield, the M1 Garand, M9 Pistol. How about the British Army's Brown Bess, its a flintlock that was designed for use by a military force, hence presumably with the aim of killing the British Empires enemies?
Heroes are often the most ordinary of men
            -Henry David Thoreau

Offline suffolkowner

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 20,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 509
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1349 on: August 29, 2020, 14:09:07 »
I fully expect the rest of semi-automatic rifles to be prohibited as well. What makes a Browning BAR less dangerous than the rifles recently moved from non-restricted and restricted to prohibited? Maybe semi-automatic shotguns will follow. Handguns for sure. I'm not sure how anyone can support a system that bans a bolt action shotgun. Here's a thought, maybe we should stop continuousl letting the truly violent criminals out of jail. The Toronto Sun ran a few articles in the spring on this and the list was astounding