Right to bear arms

[creeper]

The constitution was written in 1789, giving people the right to 'own arms for individual use, and a right to bear these same arms both for personal protection and for use in a militia.'

Fine & dandy.

This is what was available in 1789:
https://yy2.staticflickr.com/5281/5205547757_3552980359_z.jpg

So isn't that what should be allowed then? You can own as many guns from the 1789-era as you like.

[Modelexis]

You're forgetting that the whole point of the right to bear arms being that you are able to protect yourself from hostile individual threatening your life.
These hostile individuals use modern weapons and the point of the article is to even the playing field between criminals and peaceful citizens.

War has evolved with technology and if you want to maintain a level of protection you need to adopt the new technology as it evolves.

[MGCM]

:goflames: :goflames: :goflames: where my popcorn....there its is, and my beer:thumbsup: :drama: gunna be a gooder forsure

[speedog]

Ummm, and what relevance does the US constitution have in Canada?

[zieg]

lol, do you only drive cars older than the year you got your license?

[Mista Bob]

Uninformed trollbait.

[95EagleAWD]

That's actually not what it says.

"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."

[ZenOps]

I'd like the right to have armor without permit, nevermind a gun.

https://www.solgps.alberta.ca/programs_and_services/public_security/BACAct/Pages/default.aspx

$10,000 fine or six months in jail for failing to register my cockpiece? BS.

Next thing you know they are going to start fining kids $10,000 for walking down the street with ice cream (distracted walking)

[r3ccOs]

the only way to protect yourself from a gun in teh US of A is to use a gun.

Now, if we made bullets $5000 a piece and upped the price of black powder... you'd see a significant reduction in gun related violent crimes, once the supplies ran out :)

[rx7_turbo2]

We've been through this so many times.

The whole "They didn't know how powerful guns would become" argument is just silly. The spirit of the Amendment is clearly the peoples right to bear arms and protect themselves from other people and a tyrannical government, trying to infringe on their freedom. It would only make sense the understanding was in order to do that the weapons must be reasonably matched.

[Darell_n]

Guns are outdated. I need an armed drone to protect my family and I don't like the government telling me no. When that's outdated I'm building a T1000 to babysit my kids.

[DeleriousZ]

Originally posted by ZiG-87
lol, do you only drive cars older than the year you got your license?

What's wrong with that?? lol

[BigMass]

ironic how the same people that push for gun rights to protect themselves against a tyrannical government also authorized that same government to spy on their day to day activities and melt their brains from an orbiting space laser.

[heavyfuel]

People that push for more gun rights in Canada are some of the most delusional, paranoid, and entitled people out there. I'm all for recreational ownership/enthusiasm and if you live somewhere where you have to hunt to live. Last thing I want to see here is people walking into a Starbucks with a semi-auto rifle just cuz it's allowed. Keep that shit in the states. I'd also like to see a cap on the amount of guns you're allowed to own- there's absolutely no need for a responsible citizen to have 40+ firearms in their homes.

Most of us here are in our mid 30's, some of us (myself lol) can be real assholes and we've made it this far without firearms lol so no need for more firearms freedom in Canada. You wanna be a gun-tard move South and stay there.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Mitsu3000gt]

Since we've ever had a gun debate on here before...In before ban all guns!

[sr20s14zenki]

http://dmshistory8.weebly.com/uploads/8/5/5/4/8554984/6065526_orig.jpg


(=

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by heavyfuel
People that push for more gun rights in Canada are some of the most delusional, paranoid, and entitled people out there.

Tell that to the thousands of woman that get brutality raped and beaten each year because they have no (legal) viable means to protect themselves.

[speedog]

Originally posted by Seth1968


Tell that to the thousands of woman that get brutality raped and beaten each year because they have no (legal) viable means to protect themselves.

Please do enlighten us as I wasn't aware that women weren't allowed to own firearms in Canada.

[mazdavirgin]

Originally posted by Seth1968
Tell that to the thousands of woman that get brutality raped and beaten each year because they have no (legal) viable means to protect themselves.



Despite the US having the highest rate of firearms-related homicide in the industrialised world, the relationship between gun culture and violence is poorly understood. A recent study found that treating violence like an infectious disease led to a dramatic fall in shootings and killings.

Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.


http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html#.U8Pwl7EdAk0

Anyways present day military tech is so far advanced if your government really went rogue and decided to properly wage war against it's citizens with scorched earth tactics your pea shooters wouldn't stand a chance. Only reason small arms fire is an issue is because they try to limit civilian casualties. If you don't care about civilian casualties which you would not if you were an "evil" government bent on taking over 'Merica you would just bomb the shit out of everyone via plane/drones/cruise missiles.

Clearly 'Merican citizens need personal nukes.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by Seth1968


Tell that to the thousands of woman that get brutality raped and beaten each year because they have no (legal) viable means to protect themselves.



Originally posted by speedog


Please do enlighten us as I wasn't aware that women weren't allowed to own firearms in Canada.

I never said that anyone wasn't allowed to own a firearm, pepper spray, or a switch blade for that matter.

What we're not allowed to do, is carry any of those in public places for self defense.

[freshprince1]

I have guns because I like guns, plain and simple. Don't tell me what I can and can't do. I took the course, got trained, passed the test, and am qualified to own an operate them. I store them as legally required. I do my due diligence in ownership.

People assume that because I own guns, I own them to fight off a hypothetical tyrannical government, or to protect my home. I'm not really worried about any of that. I think they're cool, and I enjoy shooting them.

[ExtraSlow]

Gun laws in Canada mean that properly and legally stored guns are useless as a home-defense tool.

[D'z Nutz]

Originally posted by freshprince1
I have guns because I like guns, plain and simple. Don't tell me what I can and can't do. I took the course, got trained, passed the test, and am qualified to own an operate them. I store them as legally required. I do my due diligence in ownership.

People assume that because I own guns, I own them to fight off a hypothetical tyrannical government, or to protect my home. I'm not really worried about any of that. I think they're cool, and I enjoy shooting them.

:werd: I also like how anti-gun people also assume if I have a gun:

a) I must have anger/self-esteem issues,
b) I am going to or want to kill someone ("There's no reason to own a gun unless you want to kill someone!"),
c) I am against gun control

[DeleriousZ]

.

[civic_stylez]

Originally posted by freshprince1
I have guns because I like guns, plain and simple. Don't tell me what I can and can't do. I took the course, got trained, passed the test, and am qualified to own an operate them. I store them as legally required. I do my due diligence in ownership.

People assume that because I own guns, I own them to fight off a hypothetical tyrannical government, or to protect my home. I'm not really worried about any of that. I think they're cool, and I enjoy shooting them.

THIS.

Im not a war monger hillbilly. Shooting is a skill, i like to learn that skill and have been very safe and professional in doing so. Do guns end up in the wrong hands, sure they do. So do drivers licences and prescription medications. But there are countless people that have those that use them properly too. Guns are no exception. When used safely and properly, they are a lot of fun. Ive met lots of good people through firearms.

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by Seth1968
What we're not allowed to do, is carry any of those in public places for self defense.

If you work for brinks you're allowed to carry guns in public places for self defense.
I wonder why people don't attempt to attack brinks employees.

Canadians like to pretend that no one in Canada is allowed to carry guns in public. They have been around guns in public all their lives and the only time they freak out is when they see someone in public carrying a gun when they aren't wearing a blue costume with a badge on their shirt.

When you retire from the police force you don't suddenly turn from someone who is capable of carrying a gun in public safely to a danger to society.

[euro_racer]

Originally posted by freshprince1
I have guns because I like guns, plain and simple. Don't tell me what I can and can't do. I took the course, got trained, passed the test, and am qualified to own an operate them. I store them as legally required. I do my due diligence in ownership.

People assume that because I own guns, I own them to fight off a hypothetical tyrannical government, or to protect my home. I'm not really worried about any of that. I think they're cool, and I enjoy shooting them.



Originally posted by ExtraSlow
Gun laws in Canada mean that properly and legally stored guns are useless as a home-defense tool.


Both posts 100% on point IMO. I am a gun owner and I love my hobby. With that said I think we do not need open carry laws in Canada. Believe it or not there are unstable people out there who are able to own firearms and it's too easy for someone to get a little trigger happy in a tense situation/argument when you can lack a better sense of judgement.. Just imagine someone pulling a gun on you in a road rage situation.

What I think needs looking into is the "restricted" classification system of firearms... It is a complete joke. IMO there should only be the "prohibited" firearms and the not's. Another thing that needs to be revised in Canada is the right to protect yourself and your household. Our system is so flawed in that regard that you will actually have police suggesting that you make sure the intruder is not taken in alive.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by Modelexis


If you work for brinks you're allowed to carry guns in public places for self defense.
I wonder why people don't attempt to attack brinks employees.


Yep. If you're an enforcer for certain corporations, aka, government, then it's all good to carry a gun for self defense. But if a taxpayer pepper sprays an assailant, they could be charged, and basically have their life ruined.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by euro_racer


Both posts 100% on point IMO. I am a gun owner and I love my hobby. With that said I think we do not need open carry laws in Canada. Believe it or not there are unstable people out there who are able to own firearms and it's too easy for someone to get a little trigger happy in a tense situation/argument when you can lack a better sense of judgement.. Just imagine someone pulling a gun on you in a road rage situation.

I don't buy this argument that if people were allowed to protect themselves, then Canadian society would erupt into anarchy.

Point is, we have the right to defend ourselves, our property, and our families. The outcome of that right is a moot point.

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by euro_racer
Just imagine someone pulling a gun on you in a road rage situation.

Side arm carry is legal in the states and the only time I've ever heard of a gun being pulled in traffic by a legal gun owner is by a police officer.

When you go to the shooting range are you afraid to talk to anyone in case they might flip out on you and shoot you? According to you a shooting range is one of the most dangerous places in Canada since you have civilians with loaded weapons interacting with the public.

[Anomaly]

Originally posted by freshprince1
I have guns because I like guns, plain and simple. Don't tell me what I can and can't do. I took the course, got trained, passed the test, and am qualified to own an operate them. I store them as legally required. I do my due diligence in ownership.

People assume that because I own guns, I own them to fight off a hypothetical tyrannical government, or to protect my home. I'm not really worried about any of that. I think they're cool, and I enjoy shooting them.

Exactly...Well said.
As well... most people are completely ignorant to the firearms classification and licensing process in Canada, but they all have opinions on the matter :rolleyes:

[mazdavirgin]

Originally posted by Modelexis
If you work for brinks you're allowed to carry guns in public places for self defense.
I wonder why people don't attempt to attack brinks employees.



Travis Baumgartner has pleaded guilty to one count of first-degree murder and two counts of second-degree murder before a judge alone.

He has also admitted to an original charge of attempted murder in the serious wounding of a fourth guard.

An overnight crew of five armed guards employed by security company G4S was reloading ATM machines on the university campus in June 2012.


:facepalm: You were saying?

Anyways I am all for gun ownership but within reasons. Shotguns and hunting rifles? Sure. Handguns? Not so much. Assault rifles? Yeah no...

Shooting can be a fun past time along with hunting but we don't need the whole craziness of assault rifles or handguns.

[Nitro5]

Originally posted by euro_racer






Both posts 100% on point IMO. I am a gun owner and I love my hobby. With that said I think we do not need open carry laws in Canada. Believe it or not there are unstable people out there who are able to own firearms and it's too easy for someone to get a little trigger happy in a tense situation/argument when you can lack a better sense of judgement.. Just imagine someone pulling a gun on you in a road rage situation.

What I think needs looking into is the "restricted" classification system of firearms... It is a complete joke. IMO there should only be the "prohibited" firearms and the not's. Another thing that needs to be revised in Canada is the right to protect yourself and your household. Our system is so flawed in that regard that you will actually have police suggesting that you make sure the intruder is not taken in alive.

If those 'unstable' people in Canada already have access to firearms do you really think they aren't carrying them with them because the law says they can't?

[Anomaly]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin




:facepalm: You were saying?

Anyways I am all for gun ownership but within reasons. Shotguns and hunting rifles? Sure. Handguns? Not so much. Assault rifles? Yeah no...

Shooting can be a fun past time along with hunting but we don't need the whole craziness of assault rifles or handguns.

Define "Assault Rifle..."
Is it anything that looks scary?

[FraserB]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin




:facepalm: You were saying?

Anyways I am all for gun ownership but within reasons. Shotguns and hunting rifles? Sure. Handguns? Not so much. Assault rifles? Yeah no...

Shooting can be a fun past time along with hunting but we don't need the whole craziness of assault rifles or handguns.

First, can you describe "assault rifle"? You are either referring to a firearm that has black/tactical furniture or to one that has a high rate of fire and a large magazine. You are not referring to anything capable of automatic fire since those are prohibited in Canada anyway.

Handguns are classed as restricted in Canada. This means I'm allowed to use it at the range and at approved shooting events. I need to apply to the Chief Firearms Officer for authorization to transport it from my house to the range or to a gunsmith, if I get busted with no authorization, I am in serious trouble.

The same restrictions are placed on many "assault rifles", which is a horribly misinformed term tossed around to invoke fear.

The hunting rifles you say should be allowed are just as lethal as the firearms you see no use for, same goes with shotguns. The ability to conceal a firearm based on size is not a factor since once a non-restriced firearm goes below a certain length, it is classified as restricted and all the conditions attach.

Out of curiosity, should the brown rifle below be allowed and the black one be banned?

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd316/fraserbrown1986/Ruger10-22_zpsc968681d.jpg

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd316/fraserbrown1986/IMG_20140712_184203_zpscca32453.jpg


Originally posted by ExtraSlow
Gun laws in Canada mean that properly and legally stored guns are useless as a home-defense tool.

It's 100% possible to legally store a firearm in such a manner that would allow it to be use in a home defense situation.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by Anomaly


Define "Assault Rifle..."
Is it anything that looks scary?

It is if you're the RCMP haha, several guns are restricted based solely on looks, even .22's and those whose actions cannot be modified in any way to make them full auto, and those whose actions are used in other non-restricted models, etc.

The "people should be able to own rifles and shotguns but not hand guns or assault rifles" argument is always one I've found ridiculous. Why not limit all cars to 100HP while we're at it? I bet we would have less fatalities and less high speed car chases. Oh and Alcohol, if it was banned, we'd have fewer drunk drivers turning these vehicles into dangerous weapons...I'm sure that would be well accepted.

People support things that are convenient for them. Apply gun-hater logic to a possession they are fond of that is legal, but when used illegally can be dangerous (take your pick: car, knife, hammer, baseball bat, golf clubs, etc.), and watch what happens.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by heavyfuel
I'd also like to see a cap on the amount of guns you're allowed to own- there's absolutely no need for a responsible citizen to have 40+ firearms in their homes.

Good point. While we're at it; we need to cap the amount of cars you can own, the amount of knives you're allowed to have in your house and the amount of alcohol you're allowed to have. No responsible citizen needs more than one car, 40+ knives or 40+ liters of booze.

Placing arduous restrictions on people who legally possess an item in an attempt to curtail the illegal use of those items is pointless and has no basis in fact.

[killramos]

Originally posted by FraserB



It's 100% possible to legally store a firearm in such a manner that would allow it to be use in a home defense situation.

People have found ways to do it yes, but aside from using a safe in your bedside table you can't really do it. You can't store ammo with a gun unless they are locked up together. You must lock a gun while it's stored. A gun cannot be loaded when it's stored.

If you need a gun quickly those factors get in the way. Effectively eliminating the possibility to store a firearm to be used in a home defends situation.

Yes I know you can buy a Gunvault and keep a loaded mag next to an unlocked handgun inside of it but that vault isn't always where you are...

[ExtraSlow]

Killramos, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

[killramos]

Originally posted by heavyfuel
I'd also like to see a cap on the amount of guns you're allowed to own- there's absolutely no need for a responsible citizen to have 40+ firearms in their homes.

Most of us here are in our mid 30's, some of us (myself lol) can be real assholes and we've made it this far without firearms lol so no need for more firearms freedom in Canada. You wanna be a gun-tard move South and stay there.

Maybe we should also put a cap on how much coal you can roll?

I get it, guns aren't your thing. What I am saying is you are a damn hypocrit. You like to pretend like you fight the power but you are just the same.

As far as being in your kid thirties that means you were around back when there was significantly less gun control. You didn't even need a license to own a gun when you were a kid. You would be surprised what you "made it through".

To this day crescent heights high school has a gun range in the basement and kids could bring their .22's to school and leave them on the gun rack at a point in time.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by FraserB


Good point. While we're at it; we need to cap the amount of cars you can own, the amount of knives you're allowed to have in your house and the amount of alcohol you're allowed to have. No responsible citizen needs more than one car, 40+ knives or 40+ liters of booze.

Placing arduous restrictions on people who legally possess an item in an attempt to curtail the illegal use of those items is pointless and has no basis in fact.

+1 That is another argument I've heard before that I find completely ridiculous, as if the guy with 25 legally owned firearms is somehow more likely to do something illegal than the guy with 15 legally owned firearms. Again, apply the same logic to something else that is legal to own but when used illegal is harmful, and all of a sudden people change their tune.

For example, I could take a lifted truck and roll coal through a group of pedestrians, plowing through them. Should we limit how many trucks one can own to reduce the chance of this happening? Or should we assume the overwhelming majority of legal vehicle owners won't do that, not punish responsible owners, and put laws in place to deal with the 0.001% of people who might do something like that in our imperfect society?

[FraserB]

Not all firearms need to be in a safe or vault for LEGAL storage.

Restricteds must be double locked (trigger lock and sturdy container) or in a safe (if in a safe, there is no need for locking device).

Non-restricted do not NEED to be in a safe, vault or container. They need to be unloaded and equipped with a locking device OR difficult to break into room/container.

This is the problem that legal owners face. The media has no issue spreading outright lies when it comes to firearms and before long, every owner is a criminal because people simply do not understand the actual laws.

[killramos]

Originally posted by FraserB
Not all firearms need to be in a safe or vault for LEGAL storage.

Restricteds must be double locked (trigger lock and sturdy container) or in a safe (if in a safe, there is no need for locking device).

Non-restricted do not NEED to be in a safe, vault or container. They need to be unloaded and equipped with a locking device OR difficult to break into room/container.

This is the problem that legal owners face. The media has no issue spreading outright lies when it comes to firearms and before long, every owner is a criminal because people simply do not understand the actual laws.

I never said that they did. I was pointing out a particular scenario that would enable relatively quick access to a firearm and ammunition in a home defends scenario. In order to not have to trigger lock a handgun it must be in a safe. That was the scenario I presented.

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by killramos
You can't store ammo with a gun unless they are locked up together.

Well, as far as I know that part of the law is vague. I believe it says the ammunition must be stored separately, but doesn't go into detail about HOW separately. So, if I had a rifle under my bed and a loaded magazine in the nightstand, one could argue they are indeed separate, even though they are both in reach.

A lock can be set up for removal in a matter of seconds, and a magazine only takes a few seconds to insert.

At the end of the day, I think a setup could be had which would allow you to legally have a weapon ready in about 10 seconds.

[killramos]

Originally posted by Kloubek


Well, as far as I know that part of the law is vague. I believe it says the ammunition must be stored separately, but doesn't go into detail about HOW separately. So, if I had a rifle under my bed and a loaded magazine in the nightstand, one could argue they are indeed separate, even though they are both in reach.

A lock can be set up for removal in a matter of seconds, and a magazine only takes a few seconds to insert.

At the end of the day, I think a setup could be had which would allow you to legally have a weapon ready in about 10 seconds.

Definitely vague. I would rather just be bullet proof in the event I have to justify it to a judge. Vague isn't good enough odds to me.

[FraserB]

Fair enough, it is tricky to correctly store a handgun in such a manner that would meet the law and allow relatively quick access.

Personally, if I was to ever consider a firearm for that purpose, I wouldn't bother looking at anything Restricted.

[dexlargo]

^A shotgun would probably be the best anyway - don't need to aim too precisely.

I like the system as it is now. I don't like the idea of people carrying handguns around legally, but I don't object to people owning them and using them within the current system.

As for brown gun vs. black gun: I'd like to play, but I can't tell enough from the pictures. Brown gun looks like it might be a little short, but length is probably fine. Can't tell what calibre it is from the pictures either. From what I can see (and deliberately not researching), I vote probably okay, but from the scenario I suspect you set it up that it's a restricted/prohibited for some reason, but I can't see the reason from the photo.

black gun: may be a little short, but again I can't tell from a photo what the total length is. The magazine looks like it's prohibited though, but again, I can't tell from the picture. maybe it doesn't hold too many rounds. I also didn't check what it is and whether it's specifically prohibited. But again, from your scenario I suspect it's a non-restricted firearm, but the magazine looks problematic.

Edit: Looked at the pictures again, and now I see the trick. Good one! I'll look up the magazine though, my understanding is that it would still be illegal, but now I'm not sure.

[killramos]

Originally posted by dexlargo
^A shotgun would probably be the best anyway - don't need to aim too precisely.

I like the system as it is now. I don't like the idea of people carrying handguns around legally, but I don't object to people owning them and using them within the current system.

As for brown gun vs. black gun: I'd like to play, but I can't tell enough from the pictures. Brown gun looks like it might be a little short, but length is probably fine. Can't tell what calibre it is from the pictures either. From what I can see (and deliberately not researching), I vote probably okay, but from the scenario I suspect you set it up that it's a restricted/prohibited for some reason, but I can't see the reason from the photo.

black gun: may be a little short, but again I can't tell from a photo what the total length is. The magazine looks like it's prohibited though, but again, I can't tell from the picture. maybe it doesn't hold too many rounds. I also didn't check what it is and whether it's specifically prohibited. But again, from your scenario I suspect it's a non-restricted firearm, but the magazine looks problematic.

Brown gun black gun are the same gun. Both non restricted rimfires with no limits.

[dexlargo]

^Yes, I realized that after a minute. I didn't know that there was no limit on magazine size for rimfire cartridges. You learn something every day!

This guy is pretty proud of his 10/22 "Zombie gun": http://youtu.be/DjWhSP5vupY

[heavyfuel]

Originally posted by killramos


Maybe we should also put a cap on how much coal you can roll?

I get it, guns aren't your thing.

U sure about that?

All I'm saying is I don't want American gun culture here in Canada.

[vengie]

Originally posted by FraserB


First, can you describe "assault rifle"? You are either referring to a firearm that has black/tactical furniture or to one that has a high rate of fire and a large magazine. You are not referring to anything capable of automatic fire since those are prohibited in Canada anyway.

Handguns are classed as restricted in Canada. This means I'm allowed to use it at the range and at approved shooting events. I need to apply to the Chief Firearms Officer for authorization to transport it from my house to the range or to a gunsmith, if I get busted with no authorization, I am in serious trouble.

The same restrictions are placed on many "assault rifles", which is a horribly misinformed term tossed around to invoke fear.

The hunting rifles you say should be allowed are just as lethal as the firearms you see no use for, same goes with shotguns. The ability to conceal a firearm based on size is not a factor since once a non-restriced firearm goes below a certain length, it is classified as restricted and all the conditions attach.

Out of curiosity, should the brown rifle below be allowed and the black one be banned?

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd316/fraserbrown1986/Ruger10-22_zpsc968681d.jpg

http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd316/fraserbrown1986/IMG_20140712_184203_zpscca32453.jpg



It's 100% possible to legally store a firearm in such a manner that would allow it to be use in a home defense situation.

I see what you did there :rofl: :guns:

[killramos]

Originally posted by dexlargo
^Yes, I realized that after a minute. I didn't know that there was no limit on magazine size for rimfire cartridges. You learn something every day!

This guy is pretty proud of his 10/22 "Zombie gun": http://youtu.be/DjWhSP5vupY

Yea you can legally use 100+ round drum mags on 10/22's in canada. They cost as much as the gun and they don't work worth shit but hey to each his own.

i have a 25 round banana mag for mine but i just as often sue the little 10 round rotary since it makes the gun easier to hold when it fits flush.

if the gun is a pistol it still has a 10 round limit though hence the recent mossberg 715 debacle. Blame Duck Dynasty lol.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by dexlargo
^A shotgun would probably be the best anyway - don't need to aim too precisely.

I like the system as it is now. I don't like the idea of people carrying handguns around legally, but I don't object to people owning them and using them within the current system.

As for brown gun vs. black gun: I'd like to play, but I can't tell enough from the pictures. Brown gun looks like it might be a little short, but length is probably fine. Can't tell what calibre it is from the pictures either. From what I can see (and deliberately not researching), I vote probably okay, but from the scenario I suspect you set it up that it's a restricted/prohibited for some reason, but I can't see the reason from the photo.

black gun: may be a little short, but again I can't tell from a photo what the total length is. The magazine looks like it's prohibited though, but again, I can't tell from the picture. maybe it doesn't hold too many rounds. I also didn't check what it is and whether it's specifically prohibited. But again, from your scenario I suspect it's a non-restricted firearm, but the magazine looks problematic.

Edit: Looked at the pictures again, and now I see the trick. Good one! I'll look up the magazine though, my understanding is that it would still be illegal, but now I'm not sure.


I think everyone knows it's a trick now, but both guns are legal, because they are pretty much the same gun. The only difference is one looks like it is owned by rambo in the public's eyes, and the other by a 14 year old for plinking tin cans. The issue is guns that start life looking like the black one get restricted status for no reason besides looks, yet it is legal to modify non-restricted guns to look exactly like restricted guns (such as the example). It makes no sense whatsoever.

That gun is a .22, and .22's have no magazine limit in Canada provided they are made for rifles only (i.e. not handguns), you can buy a 500rd drum if you want, so the magazine in the black gun in the example would be legal regardless of capacity. The same 10rnd limit applies if the magazine is also usable in a handgun, or is from a handgun, even if it's a .22.

[civic_stylez]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt



I think everyone knows it's a trick now, but both guns are legal, because they are pretty much the same gun. The only difference is one looks like it is owned by rambo in the public's eyes, and the other by a 14 year old for plinking tin cans. The issue is guns that start life looking like the black one get restricted status for no reason besides looks, yet it is legal to modify non-restricted guns to look exactly like restricted guns (such as the example). It makes no sense whatsoever.

That gun is a .22, and .22's have no magazine limit in Canada provided they are made for rifles only (i.e. not handguns), you can buy a 500rd drum if you want, so the magazine in the black gun in the example would be legal regardless of capacity. The same 10rnd limit applies if the magazine is also usable in a handgun, or is from a handgun, even if it's a .22.

So true. The fact that a gun replicates an M4 automatically makes it an assault weapon and is therefore banned. Ive seen gun forum that claim .22s rip right through kevlar vests due to small surface areas of round nose shells. (Im not claiming this is true!) but in that case, .22s are more dangerous than most weapons but because most .22LR rifles have the traditional look to them and dont resemble a military carbine or assault rifle, theyre fine. So stupid. I guess its peoples perception of the weapon. I dont see the need for the AK47 in the US though. 7.62 is quite the shell and does some major damage. I run over a thousand rounds of 7.62 through and SKS each year and it surprises me that they arent restricted. I guess all im saying is the way guns are classified based on looks means nothing for the threat level or the fact that its restricted or unrestricted.

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by freshprince1
I have guns because I like guns, plain and simple. Don't tell me what I can and can't do. I took the course, got trained, passed the test, and am qualified to own an operate them. I store them as legally required. I do my due diligence in ownership.

People assume that because I own guns, I own them to fight off a hypothetical tyrannical government, or to protect my home. I'm not really worried about any of that. I think they're cool, and I enjoy shooting them.

I'm optimistic when it comes to believing that most people are good and well-meaning, so I believe that the majority of gun owners are responsible and stable individuals. However, my concern is that these responsible gun owners are the silent majority that are allowing the irresponsible/uninformed/unstable/paranoid ones on the margins of your group to misrepesent your intentions and hobby.

Open Carry Texas is one such group, in my opinion.

Spitting, Stalking, Rape Threats: How Gun Extremists Target Women (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/05/guns-bullying-open-carry-women-moms-texas)

And despite an overwhelming majority of gun owners and non-gun owners in favour of gun control, you have even the NRA backing down against the extreme tactics used by Open Carry...

Strong Majority of Americans, NRA Members Back Gun Control (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/28/strong-majority-of-americans-nra-members-back-gun-control)

Because ultimately, you're being misrepresented by two (or more) big dick swingers....

Man Pulls Gun On Fellow Customer (http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2014/07/man_pulls_gun_on_fellow_custom.html)

[FraserB]

.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by sexualbanana


I'm optimistic when it comes to believing that most people are good and well-meaning, so I believe that the majority of gun owners are responsible and stable individuals. However, my concern is that these responsible gun owners are the silent majority that are allowing the irresponsible/uninformed/unstable/paranoid ones on the margins of your group to misrepesent your intentions and hobby.

This happens with most groups. Eventually the reasonable people lose control of the debate as it is taken over by the extreme which is then what the opposition focuses on. Whether it's gun rights, women's rights (or any social justice movement really) everybody gets misrepresented eventually.



Open Carry Texas is one such group, in my opinion.

Spitting, Stalking, Rape Threats: How Gun Extremists Target Women (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/05/guns-bullying-open-carry-women-moms-texas)

And despite an overwhelming majority of gun owners and non-gun owners in favour of gun control, you have even the NRA backing down against the extreme tactics used by Open Carry...

Strong Majority of Americans, NRA Members Back Gun Control (http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/28/strong-majority-of-americans-nra-members-back-gun-control)

Because ultimately, you're being misrepresented by two (or more) big dick swingers....

Man Pulls Gun On Fellow Customer (http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2014/07/man_pulls_gun_on_fellow_custom.html)

And this is a case of the NRA realizing that their biggest support are these crazies so they're stuck in realizing that they are the people that the opposition will focus on making it harder for them to keep up with their mandate but can't be too hard on them because they are the 'feet on the ground' that get the message out and keep the $ coming in.

Same thing with political parties with unions, religious groups and the like. You need them because they will bring voters, put in the leg work to secure donations, go door-knocking put up signs etc. but need to keep tactful distance because what they want generally makes you unelectable for a large segment of the population.

[FraserB]

The biggest issue is that no one wants to have a legitimate conversation about firearms. The media and the government have spent too much time and money teaching people to be afraid of guns that there is never any coverage about firearms that isn't full of fear mongering, misrepresentation and outright lies.

Using terms like "assault rifle", "high capacity magazine", "military style" and other hyperbole is only meant to inflame and scare people away from facts and laws. Heaven forbid you try to actually educate people on the actual laws, least you be labelled a nut.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

I think Canadian gun laws are a pretty good balance of education, regulation, and owner responsibility. They could do with better research when classifying restricted/prohibited models (ie not just banning the "scary-looking" ones) but that's my only real complaint.

[euro_racer]

Originally posted by Modelexis


Side arm carry is legal in the states and the only time I've ever heard of a gun being pulled in traffic by a legal gun owner is by a police officer.

When you go to the shooting range are you afraid to talk to anyone in case they might flip out on you and shoot you? According to you a shooting range is one of the most dangerous places in Canada since you have civilians with loaded weapons interacting with the public.

Just because you never heard of it does not mean it doesn't happen. Maybe road rage was a weak example, heated arguments outside of bars/downtown is maybe a better one. Just this past weekend two men got into a argument over a woman and one decided to pull out and fire his registerd .40cal handgun injuring 7 people in the process.

Your gun range example is pretty redicolous , I don't know what range you go to but my experiences at them have been pretty friendly, I was talking about heated scenerios and situations so your gun range argument does no apply. That said I did hear of incidents such as accidental discharge and suicide happening.

Don't get me wrong, I would love more then anything to carry a sidearm out to the backcountry, but IMO it is just not neccessary in public (in Canada) and I don't have trust in most of the people in the general public to take on such a responsibility.

[DeleriousZ]

Originally posted by euro_racer
Don't get me wrong, I would love more then anything to carry a sidearm out to the backcountry, but IMO it is just not neccessary in public (in Canada) and I don't have trust in most of the people in the general public to take on such a responsibility.

This. The fact that I have a hard time trusting people to be smart enough to use a butter knife the right way, let alone a loaded firearm, makes me fully agree. All it takes is a few seconds of irrational rage/thought and everyone's life changes, why give that kind of responsibility to people you don't know and/or trust?

[finboy]

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001063269/bear_arms_xlarge.jpeg

[sputnik]

Originally posted by Modelexis


If you work for brinks you're allowed to carry guns in public places for self defense.
I wonder why people don't attempt to attack brinks employees.


LOL WUT?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/shots-fired-in-winnipeg-armoured-car-heist-1.302498

http://www.ottawasun.com/2014/06/19/armoured-truck-guard-shot-during-robbery-in-toronto-police

http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/police-seek-suspect-in-1m-armoured-truck-robbery-1.800201

http://globalnews.ca/news/1095952/armoured-car-guards-robbed-at-fairview-mall/

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/09/09/travis-baumgartner-pleads-guilty-to-killing-three-colleagues-in-armoured-car-heist/

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2011/11/22/armoured_truck_robbed_at_gunpoint_in_scarborough.html

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/04/30/armoured-car-company-heist-raises-questions

[sputnik]

Originally posted by FraserB
The biggest issue is that no one wants to have a legitimate conversation about firearms. The media and the government have spent too much time and money teaching people to be afraid of guns that there is never any coverage about firearms that isn't full of fear mongering, misrepresentation and outright lies.

Using terms like "assault rifle", "high capacity magazine", "military style" and other hyperbole is only meant to inflame and scare people away from facts and laws. Heaven forbid you try to actually educate people on the actual laws, least you be labelled a nut.

The problem is that the other side is guilty of the exact same thing.

In fact those that are staunchly pro-gun are often less likely to want to talk because they have the most to lose.

Morgan Spurlock has a good episode about guns in America on an episode of his show Inside Man (on US Netflix). It is pretty well balanced.

9bzSQaYKfZg

[sputnik]

Originally posted by FraserB
It's 100% possible to legally store a firearm in such a manner that would allow it to be use in a home defense situation.

How so?

[r3ccOs]

hrm... Assult "type" rifles or handguns that yield a corrosion resistant finish that happens to be fingerprint resistant?

awesome... yes I definately need one to carry in my pocket whenever I go bike riding and people infringe on my "rights" when not yielding for me when I ride through a red when I want to.

[civic_stylez]

Originally posted by euro_racer


Just because you never heard of it does not mean it doesn't happen. Maybe road rage was a weak example, heated arguments outside of bars/downtown is maybe a better one. Just this past weekend two men got into a argument over a woman and one decided to pull out and fire his registerd .40cal handgun injuring 7 people in the process.

Your gun range example is pretty redicolous , I don't know what range you go to but my experiences at them have been pretty friendly, I was talking about heated scenerios and situations so your gun range argument does no apply. That said I did hear of incidents such as accidental discharge and suicide happening.

Don't get me wrong, I would love more then anything to carry a sidearm out to the backcountry, but IMO it is just not neccessary in public (in Canada) and I don't have trust in most of the people in the general public to take on such a responsibility.

Cant get it to embed..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjwzv6cIy_8&oref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dcjwzv6cIy_8&has_verified=1

Scary to think he was legally carrying this.

[killramos]

Originally posted by sputnik


How so?

Read the thread. I mentioned I few scenarios

[killramos]

Originally posted by civic_stylez


Cant get it to embed..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjwzv6cIy_8&oref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dcjwzv6cIy_8&has_verified=1

Scary to think he was legally carrying this.

And what was he carrying? A handgun? Can't see anything in the video

I don't understand what you mean? Is it just that you are afraid of people who have handguns?

I was expecting like an M4 from your statement...

[sputnik]

Originally posted by killramos


Read the thread. I mentioned I few scenarios

Not really. In the scenarios you mentioned you still had guns that were "single locked" and unloaded. You also forgot to mention that ammo must be locked in a separate location.

Not exactly the ideal solution if you plan on using a firearm to protect your house from a home invasion.

Compare that to this option in the US.

LsV50T5uEyw

[killramos]

Originally posted by sputnik


Not really. In the scenarios you mentioned you still had guns that were "single locked" and unloaded. You also forgot to mention that ammo must be locked in a separate location.

Not exactly the ideal solution if you plan on using a firearm to protect your house from a home invasion.

Compare that to this option in the US.

LsV50T5uEyw

There is absolutely 0 requirement for ammo to be locked in the firearms act.

You cannot store ammo in the same location as a firearm unless they are locked together, however if you want to leave ammo all over your kitchen counter you are free to do so, so long as there are no guns locked or otherwise on your kitchen counter.

As for my mention of ammo with guns.. Funny that sounds exactly like what I said earlier...


Originally posted by killramos

You can't store ammo with a gun unless they are locked up together. You must lock a gun while it's stored. A gun cannot be loaded when it's stored.

If you need a gun quickly those factors get in the way. Effectively eliminating the possibility to store a firearm to be used in a home defends situation.

Yes I know you can buy a Gunvault and keep a loaded mag next to an unlocked handgun inside of it but that vault isn't always where you are...


As for a slick system you can usein Canada just put this in a bedside table

http://www.gunvault.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/g/v/gvb1000-image-1.png

Because this is a "Safe" under Canadian firearms laws you can keep an unlocked restricted inside it as well as ammo ( a loaded magazine). because its biometric it works very quickly. You could also keep a locked shotgun case under your bed (not biometric) with shells locked inside with it that would be kosher, i think the handgun way is slicker.

However I always said that the laws make it very difficult to use a gun for self defense, you just have to spend a bunch of money and be smart about it.

I for instance keep my handgun unlocked inside my safe with loaded magazines right next to it. However i have a full sized safe in my basement and am looking to get one of the products i showed above( GunVault Mini) to keep in my bedroom.

I do live in the Northeast after all :rolleyes:

edit: I will add the caveat that I am in no way providing legal advise in this posst just pointing out some interesting products

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by sputnik


How so?

Spring loaded biometric gun safe with loaded clips right beside the gun. People who go to such lengths usually are well practiced in readying the weapon very quickly as well.

Pistols make terrible home defense weapons anyway, a small shotgun, pepper spay or a baseball bat/golf club are all things I'd rather have. Try hitting a relatively small moving target when you're truly scared for your life - without training, it probably isn't going to happen, and even then, training will never simulate the situation fully. I'd much rather have a "spray and pray" type solution like a small pistol gripped shotgun or bear spray (though the latter might get me just as bad lol).

Ammo can be with the gun if they are locked up (included in a pre-loaded clip), or ammo can be all over your house out in the open if there are no guns around. You can leave it on the kitchen counter if you like, or in your bedside table or wherever you please. No issues there at all. You cannot purchase it without a license, however.

[killramos]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt


Spring loaded biometric gun safe with loaded clips right beside the gun. People who go to such lengths usually are well practiced in readying the weapon very quickly as well.

Pistols make terrible home defense weapons anyway, a small shotgun, pepper spay or a baseball bat/golf club are all things I'd rather have. Try hitting a relatively small moving target when you're truly scared for your life - without training, it probably isn't going to happen, and even then, training will never simulate the situation fully. I'd much rather have a "spray and pray" type solution like a small pistol gripped shotgun or bear spray (though the latter might get me just as bad lol).

Ammo can be with the gun if they are locked up (included in a pre-loaded clip), or ammo can be all over your house out in the open if there are no guns around. You can leave it on the kitchen counter if you like, or in your bedside table or wherever you please. No issues there at all. You cannot purchase it without a license, however.

Sounds like we are both on the same mental track hahaha

[FraserB]

KelTec KSG with a Surefire light. Legally holds 15 shells, short enough that you're not going get hung up on door frames.

Hearing a shotgun being racked in the dark is probably going to send a lot of would be criminals running.

[speedog]

Kind of, sort of related to this thread - 29 year old mom accidentally shot and killed by her 2 year old son in a Walmart in Idaho (link (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/12/31/us/walmart-shooting-by-2-year-old.html?referrer=) to story)...


By BILL MORLIN and KIRK JOHNSON
DECEMBER 30, 2014
HAYDEN, Idaho — The details are shatteringly ordinary. A 2-year-old toddler, sitting in a shopping cart in a Walmart, his mother’s purse unattended and within reach as she shopped. Three girls, all under age 11 — relatives of the boy and his mother, the police said — tagging along. A frosty morning in the northern Idaho panhandle, the temperature in the teens. Holiday break. The clothing aisles near electronics, back of the store.

Then, shortly before 10:20 a.m. on Tuesday, as the store video cameras recorded the scene, the little boy found a gun in his mother’s purse and it discharged once at near point-blank range from where she stood, less than arm’s length away, said Lt. Stu Miller, a spokesman for the Kootenai County sheriff’s office. She died at the scene, he said, her death appearing to be accidental.

“He probably still doesn’t even know what has happened,” Lieutenant Miller said of the boy.

The victim, Veronica Jean Rutledge, 29, of Blackfoot, Idaho, about 380 miles from Hayden in Idaho’s southeast corner, was visiting family members here in this community of about 13,000 people bordering the resort town of Coeur d’Alene, about 40 minutes from Spokane, Wash. Both her parents and her husband’s live in the area, Lieutenant Miller said.

He did not know whether Ms. Rutledge had a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Her husband came to the store to collect his son and the girls after the accident.

“This situation is such a tragedy, particularly happening so close to the holidays,” Lieutenant Miller said. Asked why the woman might have felt the need to go armed to the Walmart, he said that carrying a weapon was not particularly remarkable or unusual.

“It’s pretty common around here — a lot of people carry loaded guns,” he said.

This part of Idaho, about 100 miles from the Canadian border, is not part of the state’s famed agriculture belt, known for its potatoes, which stretches far to the south. Up here, evergreen forests, the blue expanse of nearby Lake Coeur d’Alene, and the deep historical imprint of the silver mines that defined life for decades starting the 1800s, make it feel more like Montana or Washington, the states that sandwich it on either side.

“It’s a small-town atmosphere with a lot of tourism and a lot of growth,” said Stefan T. Chatwin, the city administrator, in an interview at City Hall, about three blocks from the Walmart, which sat closed, its parking lot mostly empty, on a stretch of U.S. 95 that wends down from British Columbia. The store is expected to reopen on Wednesday,

Mr. Chatwin also said that guns are a part of the culture here. The city amended its gun laws just last week, he said, to conform with state laws and make it clear that a gun owner is justified in firing a weapon in defense of persons or property.

Judy Minter, a self-employed artist who was working on an art display at City Hall, said that she too supported the right to bear arms, though she said she did not carry a weapon herself. The wisdom of when to go armed or not seemed to her to be more the question at issue in Tuesday’s accident.

“There’s a lot of people who do carry guns in this area,” said Ms. Minter, who had spent most of the day photographing bald eagles, a common sight on Lake Coeur d’Alene. “But for her to have it within reach of her child — that was not very smart.”

Bill Morlin reported from Hayden, and Kirk Johnson from Seattle.

And now the shootings that have left 9 dead in the Edmonton area - there is no right answer when it comes to gun controls. Both tragic events in different jurisdictions with different gun laws and innocent people are dead.

[J-D]

Originally posted by speedog
Kind of, sort of related to this thread - 29 year old mom accidentally shot and killed by her 2 year old son in a Walmart in Idaho (link (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/12/31/us/walmart-shooting-by-2-year-old.html?referrer=) to story)...



And now the shootings that have left 9 dead in the Edmonton area - there is no right answer when it comes to gun controls. Both tragic events in different jurisdictions with different gun laws and innocent people are dead.

If other shoppers were carrying guns in that Walmart, they could have taken down that toddler before he caused any trouble. :rofl:

http://resource.mmgn.com/Gallery/normal/GCRSH4Z3.jpg

[Robin Goodfellow]

Originally posted by rx7_turbo2


This right was amended to the constitution right around the American Revolution (against the British). The "Tyrannical" government was the British, and the intended freedom was from... the British.

This wasn't initially about arming oneself against the American government itself.


Originally posted by rx7_turbo2
[B]
It would only make sense the understanding was in order to do that the weapons must be reasonably matched.

Without the power to tax, the power to bear arms is of limited value.

[Modelexis]

Originally posted by speedog
And now the shootings that have left 9 dead in the Edmonton area - there is no right answer when it comes to gun controls. Both tragic events in different jurisdictions with different gun laws and innocent people are dead.

I don't see what this story has to do with gun controls. No different than leaving your kid alone behind the wheel of a car with the keys in it while you go shopping. The car incident would not make me wish that there were more laws about leaving keys in cars or owning cars or owning keys, it's just some stupid person being careless.

I'm not equating leaving a kid in a car with the keys to leaving a loaded gun near a kid, I'm just asking why the gun tragedy needs to be met with legislation while the car tragedy would be met with a Darwin award.

Laws don't stop stupid, if they did no one would ever be killed by a dunk driver speeding through a red light.

[dirtsniffer]

Whoa. I agree with modelexis and I'll quote 2EFN. Play Stupid games and you win stupid prizes.

[Gman.45]

Agree with Modelexis.

Accidents are unavoidable, here in Canada, over the last 10 years, there have been about 700-900 people killed with firearms per year, and 80 percent are suicides in that 10 year average, the remaining 20 percent accidents and homicides. Mostly homicides. Considering the over 10 million registered firearms the RCMP had in their old database, and the countless more that never were registered, the amount of accidents is a very low figure.

As soon as something like this Walmart accident happens though, many begin repeating that firearms are too dangerous, look what happened! Need I remind anyone, a Calgary TAC officer shot a fellow member in the face at point blank range accidentally not long ago. Even in the military, including elite units, fratricide and accidents make up a very significant portion of friendly casualties. Accidents will always happen, ignore any of the 4 key rules of using firearms, and disaster can strike anyone. That doesn't mean that these accidents outweigh the benefits firearms provide many.

So far as Canadian home defense, it is very possible, some of the things here in this thread are accurate. Biometric long gun and pistol safes aren't expensive, open quickly, and under our laws you can store ammunition in magazines or whatever else in the same safe for fast access.

Pistols, rifles, and shotguns all have their pros and cons for indoor CBQ. Contrary to popular belief, a short barreled rifle such as an AR platform variant is actually less likely to overpenetrate walls and such when fighting indoors, due to the light projectile and velocity, it's far more likely to break up hitting such barriers, and being less of a threat for things in the background, than pistol rounds or shotgun slugs/buck. Also, a shoulder supported weapon is always easier to control, gross motor skills apply more than fine comparing shoulder supported to pistol - more control, better accuracy etc. The only disadvantage here in Canada is the 5 rnd magazine limit for a semi auto rifle, which IMO makes a shotgun a better option despite all the above.

Training as stated is very important, and not just goofing off on your own at the range. Take some defensive shooting courses, they are available all over the place now for a modest fee. I shot, competitively even as a kid (c carded for the olympic trap team), and shot fast draw and cowboy action as well. I considered myself a great shot, ready for any danger, until taking a couple dozen courses through Sig Sauer Academy and various other gunfighting schools in the USA. I quickly realized how unprepared I was, and what little I knew about the science of CBQ and gun fighting. After the first couple of courses, my skill set improved rapidly, and it will for anyone else as well. Even just a couple 2 day courses can give any shooter a huge amount of knowledge and a strong foundation of skills that can be used to train in even more advanced techniques if desired.

As FraserB and others have said, our laws are complex, but not THAT complex, go to a reputable school (CSC) and learn for yourself, or from somebody you trust and knows wtf they are talking about. Shooting/Firearms - It's a privilege here, not a right unfortunately, and your best defense is first and foremost accurate information and education regarding the laws here. Understand that we are lucky to live in a country where it is far less likely to ever need to use a firearm as a defensive tool, however being ignorant of what to do and the legalities of the issue isn't the best idea, as there is always that slight chance you may become involved in some sort of violence, however unlikely. At the very least, you should learn how to store your firearms in a manner that is firstly legal, then safe, and then accessible, if nothing else, if you're going to consider any of this stuff.

As for the "anything over 10 guns should be banned, and assault rifles/handguns are too dangerous with hi cap mags ", when the CBC did a documentary called "Shadow Company" while my company was running a PSD private military course, I did a demonstration with .22 bolt action rifle and 3 10 round magazines, a 100$ Canadian tire special, with 15 steel targets for the reporter and camera crew when this came up. Two rounds into every target in way under a minute including magazine changes. The type of weapon is truly irrelevant, it's the person that is the threat. Personally I'd be more afraid of somebody coming at me with a 338 hunting rifle than an AR or other magazine fed semi auto in 556.

[rx7_turbo2]

Originally posted by Modelexis
Laws don't stop stupid
This.

[Anomaly]

Originally posted by speedog
Kind of, sort of related to this thread - 29 year old mom accidentally shot and killed by her 2 year old son in a Walmart in Idaho (link (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/12/31/us/walmart-shooting-by-2-year-old.html?referrer=) to story)...



And now the shootings that have left 9 dead in the Edmonton area - there is no right answer when it comes to gun controls. Both tragic events in different jurisdictions with different gun laws and innocent people are dead.

Keep in mind; the guy behind the edmonton killings had a criminal record and therefore should have been ineligible from owning a firearm. So in all likely hood the firearm was stolen or smuggled.

[Nitro5]

It was stolen in BC in 2006.

[speedog]

Originally posted by Anomaly
Keep in mind; the guy behind the edmonton killings had a criminal record and therefore should have been ineligible from owning a firearm. So in all likely hood the firearm was stolen or smuggled.

All should note that I really don't think that Canada's gun laws are doing anything to serve the public in any meaningful way - education is the only thing that can help. What happened in Idaho is very unfortunate and one has to wonder why some people become so blase' in their care of their firearms. The Edmonton situation - probably no fix for that as the information now coming out is sort of revealing that the perpetrator in that situation most likely would've had the means at his disposal to do what he wanted at some point in time, sooner or later.

[Masked Bandit]

Originally posted by speedog
Kind of, sort of related to this thread - 29 year old mom accidentally shot and killed by her 2 year old son in a Walmart in Idaho (link (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/12/31/us/walmart-shooting-by-2-year-old.html?referrer=) to story)...



And now the shootings that have left 9 dead in the Edmonton area - there is no right answer when it comes to gun controls. Both tragic events in different jurisdictions with different gun laws and innocent people are dead.

That's pretty tough to compare the two situations. Edmonton was a case of a crazy person who would have found a way to make it happen with any number of weapons. Easy availability wasn't the driving factor, crazy was. In Idaho though, no gun in the purse = no dead Mommy.

I've never understood the 'Murican's fascination with the need to carry handguns.

[Nitro5]

Originally posted by Masked Bandit


That's pretty tough to compare the two situations. Edmonton was a case of a crazy person who would have found a way to make it happen with any number of weapons. Easy availability wasn't the driving factor, crazy was. In Idaho though, no gun in the purse = no dead Mommy.

I've never understood the 'Murican's fascination with the need to carry handguns.

As stated before its about stupid. If you are going to carry a gun then you should use the proper equipment, not just throw it in your purse. A responsible gun owner would either have a holster designed for carry in a purse, or a purse designed to carry a gun.

[Thales of Miletus]

Originally posted by Masked Bandit




I've never understood the 'Murican's fascination with the need to carry handguns.

Their media generates a state of constant fear and intolerance.

[FraserB]

Originally posted by Thales of Miletus


Their media generates a state of constant fear and intolerance.

Within Canada, do you think we need increased gun control?

At the same time, keeping in mind the Constitutional and property rights for US citizens, what would appropriate gun control look like?

[Thales of Miletus]

Originally posted by FraserB


Within Canada, do you think we need increased gun control?

At the same time, keeping in mind the Constitutional and property rights for US citizens, what would appropriate gun control look like?

I think Canada is doing fine in it's current state.

After all guns don't kill people, Americans kill people.

America's problems are so great, that I think the nation is a lost cause. It is a blending of third world poverty and ignorance, with an industrialized nation of extreme avarice.

America talks about a border fence. I wish they would build it. Not to keep Mexicans out, but to keep Americans in.

[dirtsniffer]

Oh FYI, Thales hates Americans. It's been well documented on performance-shop

[Nitro5]

I think everyone knows of Toma's hate of Americans :dunno:

[MGCM]

if its not a gun its a sword, if its not a sword its a knife, if its not a knife its fire, if its not fire its a large rock, if its not a large rock its a large stick.........cmon ppl are we really having this debate? There is nothing to debate, if somebody wants to kill it does not matter. Sure a gun might be easier but if one is not available there is 101 other items they can use to kill a person. I think this obessive fear over guns is retarded.

[faiz999]

im pro gun and don't mind regulations BUT with that comes a more lucrative black market.

unfortunately, its fairly easy to purchase firearms illegally if someone is willing to do so.

i'm not sure what the solution would be other than easing up the current gun legislation that already exist but i dont think there would be much support for that.

[Masked Bandit]

Originally posted by FraserB


Within Canada, do you think we need increased gun control?

At the same time, keeping in mind the Constitutional and property rights for US citizens, what would appropriate gun control look like?

I don't think we as Canadians need to change anything. The legitimate hobbyist can still get a handgun with some effort and they are going to be pretty responsible gun owners. Most other people can't be bothered to jump through the hoops and I think that's a good thing. The average Joe Canadian doesn't have a need for a handgun. I think it's a nice balance.

[Thales of Miletus]

Originally posted by dirtsniffer
Oh FYI, Thales hates Americans. It's been well documented on performance-shop



I do not hate Americans. I dislike what has happened to their society and think it serves as a warning to Canada. Canada has a tendency to follow in America's footsteps after all.

I do not like that America is not a democracy. I don't like that corporation have control of the political process. Nor do I like that things can be considered people in the United States.

If you would like to know my stance on a subject, just ask me.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by MGCM
if its not a gun its a sword, if its not a sword its a knife, if its not a knife its fire, if its not fire its a large rock, if its not a large rock its a large stick.........cmon ppl are we really having this debate? There is nothing to debate, if somebody wants to kill it does not matter. Sure a gun might be easier but if one is not available there is 101 other items they can use to kill a person. I think this obessive fear over guns is retarded.

The ease is the point. Easier to kill more people in less time with much less effort. Not seeing too many school mass 'rock bludgeonings' or infants killing heir mother in a grocery store with a large stick.

[Thales of Miletus]

Originally posted by kertejud2


The ease is the point. Easier to kill more people in less time with much less effort. Not seeing too many school mass 'rock bludgeonings' or infants killing heir mother in a grocery store with a large stick.

One major thing to consider is that America took apart their mental health care system. America also doesn't provide much in the way of care under the ACA.

Add in the economic inequity in the United States, the NRA's push to put a gun in the hand of everything that walks or crawls, and continuing racial tensions, then you have a toxic situation developing each day.

[ZenOps]

The main difference between the US and Canada is that the US got fed up with the British monarchy very early on, and heavily armed themselves and fought over the right to not be taxed, or be forced to use a monetary system controlled by the Crown.

Which is why lead is money in the US. Its one of the easiest and most useful materials to make bullets.

[Thales of Miletus]

Originally posted by ZenOps
The main difference between the US and Canada is that the US got fed up with the British monarchy very early on, and heavily armed themselves and fought over the right to not be taxed, or be forced to use a monetary system controlled by the Crown.

Which is why lead is money in the US. Its one of the easiest and most useful materials to make bullets.

True but the U.S. citizenry quickly put themselves into a different form of serfdom. Today's King George in America is called a CEO.

While Americans claim to be free, I cannot see them being anywhere as free as the average Canadian.