Canadian Gun Law

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by Newview01

I will wait for the legislation that restricts magazine capacity while committing a crime, but removes it for other uses.

The law regarding committing a crime with a firearm is already in place. Possession and Mag capacity is Zero.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by Newview01

The want vs need argument is as illogical as the others.

In that case would you care to divulge which camp you are in ?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Salavee

Agreed -Firearms regulations and restrictions do not protect society.. it was a misguided attempt to appear like protection an ended up as a bad joke. That is reality. As is implementing major Laws that are not enforced as they should be. I agree with that as well. That's why all my guns are locked up... to protect society from the misuse of my firearms. However, I'm glad they made me do that as I can really see the difference in firearms misuse out there.
As I said previously, I'm not FOR gun control any more than anyone else on here. It's just that I don't see the need for the super high capacity magazines everyone seems to want. To add to the numbers of those types of firearms to appease a relatively small number of actual users doesn't make sense to me any more than I would agree with packing - other than in special circumstances. Those limitations (like speed limits) don't hurt anyone. Having large capacity firearms readily available anywhere and everywhere has the distinct possibility of doing society more harm than good. We live with full auto restrictions, why not large cap. magazines as well.?

I don't see the need for 200mph automobiles, but just because I don't see the need, why should I want to deny their use to other people? I see no need to people to smoke, and it is the number one cause of preventable death in Canada, and yet it has not been banned. Alcohol abuse results in far more deaths and injury than firearms, yet alcohol has not been banned. So even though there is no need for tobacco or alcohol, and many Canadians die each year from using them, we allow their use, yet you defend magazine limits, because you don't see a need for large capacity magazines.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Salavee

In that case would you care to divulge which camp you are in ?

I am in the camp that believes we should be judged in a court of law by our actions, not our possessions.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I don't see the need for 200mph automobiles, but just because I don't see the need, why should I want to deny their use to other people? I see no need to people to smoke, and it is the number one cause of preventable death in Canada, and yet it has not been banned. Alcohol abuse results in far more deaths and injury than firearms, yet alcohol has not been banned. So even though there is no need for tobacco or alcohol, and many Canadians die each year from using them, we allow their use, yet you defend magazine limits, because you don't see a need for large capacity magazines.

Those are some kind of examples alright. First, nowhere did I indicate that the purchase or use of a 200 mph capable vehicle should be denied to anyone at any time. Same goes for alcohol and tobacco. Stop twisting things around. Anybody can buy and use a 200 mph capable vehicle anytime they want. What they can't do is drive it over posted speed limits or especially to the limit of it's design capabilities on roadways utilized by the public as a whole. There are restrictions on a lot of things for a variety of good reasons and others that we don't quite understand and others we outright reject. Nobody likes restrictions but we are told the public places or areas where people are not allowed to smoke. Another restriction ! The same goes for alcohol. There are places and activities where the consumption or use of alcohol is not allowed as well.. yet another restriction! Get it now ?


We have to abide by these rules, like it or not. The majority of Canadians happen to agree with them .. maybe even yourself. As to unrestricted use of firearm mega magazines, there are restrictions applied to those as well.

BTW, Twisting my posts is another.
.

[Hillbilly 12]

Originally Posted by Salavee

Those are some kind of examples alright. First, nowhere did I indicate that the purchase or use of a 200 mph capable vehicle should be denied to anyone at any time. Same goes for alcohol and tobacco. Stop twisting things around. Anybody can buy and use a 200 mph capable vehicle anytime they want. What they can't do is drive it over posted speed limits or especially to the limit of it's design capabilities on roadways utilized by the public as a whole. There are restrictions on a lot of things for a variety of good reasons and others that we don't quite understand and others we outright reject. Nobody likes restrictions but we are told the public places or areas where people are not allowed to smoke. Another restriction ! The same goes for alcohol. There are places and activities where the consumption or use of alcohol is not allowed as well.. yet another restriction! Get it now ?


We have to abide by these rules, like it or not. The majority of Canadians happen to agree with them .. maybe even yourself. As to unrestricted use of firearm mega magazines, there are restrictions applied to those as well.

BTW, Twisting my posts is another.
.

And that's the problem, we abide by them, but criminals don't, so what good are they? Who is the majority?, certainly none of the people I know.

Handgun laws are in place why??? For the lawful people not for criminals because they certainly don't abide by them.. It's like we all follow gun laws, but do criminals?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Salavee

Those are some kind of examples alright. First, nowhere did I indicate that the purchase or use of a 200 mph capable vehicle should be denied to anyone at any time. Same goes for alcohol and tobacco. Stop twisting things around. Anybody can buy and use a 200 mph capable vehicle anytime they want. What they can't do is drive it over posted speed limits or especially to the limit of it's design capabilities on roadways utilized by the public as a whole. There are restrictions on a lot of things for a variety of good reasons and others that we don't quite understand and others we outright reject. Nobody likes restrictions but we are told the public places or areas where people are not allowed to smoke. Another restriction ! The same goes for alcohol. There are places and activities where the consumption or use of alcohol is not allowed as well.. yet another restriction! Get it now ?


We have to abide by these rules, like it or not. The majority of Canadians happen to agree with them .. maybe even yourself. As to unrestricted use of firearm mega magazines, there are restrictions applied to those as well.

BTW, Twisting my posts is another.
.

Wrong! A person can take that 200mph vehicle and drive it at double the speed limit. He may get a ticket afterward, but that is after the fact, and by then he could cause an accident, that results in injury or death. Thousands of speeding tickets are handed out every year, and speeding is very common, speed limits do not prevent speeding, the same for a legal blood alcohol limit, many people are convicted of impaired driving every year, the laws don't prevent impaired driving, they just result in penalties after the fact. Peiple still smoke where it is not allowed, once again, they may receive a fine after the fact, but the laws don't prevent illegal smoking. In all three examples, the laws are dependent on people's behavior, but a magazine limit, actually bans a product, which is an entirely different situation. And the truly sad part is that the police use prohibited magazines, and in at least two cases where the public gained access to these prohibited magazines from the police, no charges resulted. The AR that was stolen out of a police vehicle in Calgary, and the RCMP handgun that was left on a B.C. ferry by a careless officer, are the examples that I refer to. If these magazines are such a threat to public safety, why did no charges result in either situation?

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by Newview01

I am in the camp that believes we should be judged in a court of law by our actions, not our possessions.

That makes sense to a point but that same sentiment would apply to the possession of drugs, contraband, illegal or stolen property and the like... wouldn't it? As it stands at the moment I think we are all judged in law by our illegal actions, not our possessions. That's a good thing or the anti's
would have us buried in short order.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Salavee

That makes sense to a point but that same sentiment would apply to the possession of drugs, contraband, illegal or stolen property and the like... wouldn't it? As it stands at the moment I think we are all judged in law by our illegal actions, not our possessions. That's a good thing or the anti's
would have us buried in short order.

Your examples prove my point.

Contraband? Or are just trying to use more words to say illegal property? What is illegal property? That is exactly what my point is. There should be no need to ever group those two words together.

Stolen property? This is obvious, as the only criminal charge would need to be robbery or burglary. Drugs is the interesting one. While morally I am against legalizing them all, as a point of personal freedom I lean towards just that.

Your arguments are getting weaker as this thread progresses. The only thing you have made clear is that you do not trust yourself with a standard capacity magazine, and thus we should all agree to that.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Salavee

Those are some kind of examples alright. First, nowhere did I indicate that the purchase or use of a 200 mph capable vehicle should be denied to anyone at any time. Same goes for alcohol and tobacco. Stop twisting things around. Anybody can buy and use a 200 mph capable vehicle anytime they want. What they can't do is drive it over posted speed limits or especially to the limit of it's design capabilities on roadways utilized by the public as a whole. There are restrictions on a lot of things for a variety of good reasons and others that we don't quite understand and others we outright reject. Nobody likes restrictions but we are told the public places or areas where people are not allowed to smoke. Another restriction ! The same goes for alcohol. There are places and activities where the consumption or use of alcohol is not allowed as well.. yet another restriction! Get it now ?


We have to abide by these rules, like it or not. The majority of Canadians happen to agree with them .. maybe even yourself. As to unrestricted use of firearm mega magazines, there are restrictions applied to those as well.

BTW, Twisting my posts is another.
.

So you agree that the restriction should not be on the object itself, but on the use of it?

[Unregistered user]

Originally Posted by Salavee

Those are some kind of examples alright. First, nowhere did I indicate that the purchase or use of a 200 mph capable vehicle should be denied to anyone at any time. Same goes for alcohol and tobacco. Stop twisting things around. Anybody can buy and use a 200 mph capable vehicle anytime they want. What they can't do is drive it over posted speed limits or especially to the limit of it's design capabilities on roadways utilized by the public as a whole. There are restrictions on a lot of things for a variety of good reasons and others that we don't quite understand and others we outright reject. Nobody likes restrictions but we are told the public places or areas where people are not allowed to smoke. Another restriction ! The same goes for alcohol. There are places and activities where the consumption or use of alcohol is not allowed as well.. yet another restriction! Get it now ?


We have to abide by these rules, like it or not. The majority of Canadians happen to agree with them .. maybe even yourself. As to unrestricted use of firearm mega magazines, there are restrictions applied to those as well.

BTW, Twisting my posts is another.
.

You are the twisting one. Speeding at 200mph on a public road is a criminal offence, owning a car so capable is not. Pointing a firearm at someone or shooting someone are criminal offences. Owning a semi auto center-fire rifle with over 5 rd mag capacity is a criminal offence. The car owner will only be punished for dangerous behavior, the gun owner gets punished for that plus punished for possession . Clear now?

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by Unregistered user

You are the twisting one. Speeding at 200mph on a public road is a criminal offence, owning a car so capable is not. Pointing a firearm at someone or shooting someone are criminal offences. Owning a semi auto center-fire rifle with over 5 rd mag capacity is a criminal offence. The car owner will only be punished for dangerous behavior, the gun owner gets punished for that plus punished for possession . Clear now?

Here's what is clear. For those who think high volume rapid fire capability is absolutely necessary just use 10 five round magazines. As someone on here already stated it takes only a second to change a mag so that would allow better than 50 rnds per minute. That almost doubles what can be done with a mag cap 0f 30 rnds and I'm sure, with enough practice, that rate could be increased to near 60 rnds/min. I know that's possible 'cause I saw it happen on TV. Everybody wins ..and it's legal.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Salavee

Here's what is clear. For those who think high volume rapid fire capability is absolutely necessary just use 10 five round magazines. As someone on here already stated it takes only a second to change a mag so that would allow better than 50 rnds per minute. That almost doubles what can be done with a mag cap 0f 30 rnds and I'm sure, with enough practice, that rate could be increased to near 60 rnds/min. I know that's possible 'cause I saw it happen on TV. Everybody wins ..and it's legal.

So then why not a large magazine for convenience if the rate of fire is the same? Your arguments are pathetic and hardly even self serving. What is your argument for restricted vs non restricted?

Can you say "I don't have one so you don't need one" ?

[243 wild cat]

Originally Posted by markg

I would change the laws regarding Supressors. For me this is personal. I had a firearms incident that has damaged my hearing. Wouldnt have happened if I had been using a suppresor.

I miss being able to listen to music and hearing all the tones and pitches. I hate having to say "pardon" to people speaking to me on the wrong side.

100% on this its outrageous that we have not had a change in regarding supressors. I have been around them and have shot rifles that are cannons for loud blast noise. And for any shooter or hunter or just general public! that complain of gunshots are missing out. They work fellas it's a crime! that we dont have a right to own them. So for me it's just a pile of **** for a law How this law ever got in had to be some idiot politician that watched to much Gangster movies.

[Brbpuppy]

Eliminate the restricted firearms classification and regulations.

[markg]

Originally Posted by Newview01

I am in the camp that believes we should be judged in a court of law by our actions, not our possessions.

Smartest thing I have read on this forum in weeks!

[Unregistered user]

Originally Posted by Salavee

Here's what is clear. For those who think high volume rapid fire capability is absolutely necessary just use 10 five round magazines. As someone on here already stated it takes only a second to change a mag so that would allow better than 50 rnds per minute. That almost doubles what can be done with a mag cap 0f 30 rnds and I'm sure, with enough practice, that rate could be increased to near 60 rnds/min. I know that's possible 'cause I saw it happen on TV. Everybody wins ..and it's legal.

So what in the actual frig is your problem? Right, people owning guns, I get it.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Salavee

Here's what is clear. For those who think high volume rapid fire capability is absolutely necessary just use 10 five round magazines. As someone on here already stated it takes only a second to change a mag so that would allow better than 50 rnds per minute. That almost doubles what can be done with a mag cap 0f 30 rnds and I'm sure, with enough practice, that rate could be increased to near 60 rnds/min. I know that's possible 'cause I saw it happen on TV. Everybody wins ..and it's legal.

Most things that we have or do in life are not "absolutely necessary". 200mph cars, alcohol, are tobacco are hardly necessary, but they aren't banned just because someone has no personal use for them. Have you ever considered that the rate of fire is not the only reason for owning a 20 or 30 round magazine. When I hunted coyotes/ ground squirrels/crows with my AR-15, I carried one loaded 20 round mag, so I didn't have to bother carrying spare magazines. And it was posted a few seconds to change magazines, which is a multiple of "a second". If anyone can change magazines as quickly as you are telling us, then a magazine capacity limit, really isn't protecting anyone., so it is just another useless regulation.

I find it ironic, that you manage to contradict each of your own justifications for having magazine limits

[bat119]

With an RPAL you should be able to cross a provincial border for a shoot, repair or go to a gun store without getting a ATT what a PIA in Lloydminster.

Sit on hold for 15 mins. for a permit to cross the street

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Because it allows us as law abiding firearm owners access. The AR and AK are not weapons of choice for criminals anyway. I can't say that I think you have said anything logical in this discussion. You keep pushing to restrict inanimate objects, when the problem is clearly human nature, which will always find a way around the tightest of restrictions.

I could compromise and agree with restrictions on full auto, i.e. proper training, etc, but again, the criminal doesn't care about those laws, and any good criminal will not be packing full auto anyways. Full auto is is only for those with disposable income. Not accurate, and expensive to shoot.

Back to mag capacities, no argument can justify mag capacity restrictions. In one second you have a new mag slapped in.

This is for you Elk .. from your Buddy

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Salavee

This is for you Elk .. from your Buddy

You are persistent, an admirable trait. But what I stated in no way justifies mag capacity restrictions.

[Hillbilly 12]

I sure wish criminals would read the laws about the use of firearms, there are laws in place all they have to do is follow them lol! I have the answer, decriminalise and make mags, ak 47, and ar 15s legal!!!! Then all gun crimes would be a thing of the past!

Laws are only for law abiding people, period.

[wildbill]

Originally Posted by Hillbilly 12

I sure wish criminals would read the laws about the use of firearms, there are laws in place all they have to do is follow them lol! I have the answer, decriminalise and make mags, ak 47, and ar 15s legal!!!! Then all gun crimes would be a thing of the past!

Laws are only for law abiding people, period.

You’re right

[whiskeywillow]

Originally Posted by STY181

Be able to hunt with hand guns

One more vote for this^^^ ...it's legal and been very-very successful abroad, there's already been so much written on the subject for so-long (with countless bore/ballistic viability's proven on the matter) that at this-point it's extremely naive for any 'Canadian Powers that-be' to argue Handgun hunting isn't viable...

Cougar 'be first on my list

[bigbaddad]

Originally Posted by CaberTosser

It’s easier to note the only part of the firearms act that I’d keep, that being the licensing component. Once a person has proven they’ve not got a criminal history and don’t have a serious mental health issues it should not matter if they have a single shot Cooey, a semi-auto .338 Win Mag, a Sig P320 pistol with factory 21 round magazines or an AR-15 with a 40 round magazine.

I am in full agreeement with the part about keeping violent criminals locked up for far longer than they are currently being sentenced, transferring culpability to the offenders rather than any ‘unfortunate upbringing or circumstance’ that they used to try to justify their serious criminality.

I'm with Caber..

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[Ennyindabenny]

Originally Posted by Hillbilly 12

To be able to own an ak-47 and shoot it in the field.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

[Bow River Drifter]

ruger 10/22 high capacity mags.

[adriel]

I would have said NR AR15's, but with Maccabbe doing the SLR's and the BCL102, I think those both have answers now.

[Tommeh]

Originally Posted by wildbill

If there was one Canadian gun law you could change, which one would it be and why?

Just one?

[Tommeh]

Originally Posted by Tommeh

Just one?

I mean honestly are things going in the right direction?