Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Guns & Ammo Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #181  
Old 12-30-2011, 02:21 PM
rwm1273 rwm1273 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Deadmonton
Posts: 6,368
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scar270 View Post
However I'm against punishing me and stopping me from enjoying things because of what a stupid person might do. (This is a general statement, not directed at RWM)
Now that is the conundrum. How do we protect the general population without stopping us from enjoying what we want to do?

I know when someone is pointing comments at me directly, and when the question is legitimate. I am a stake holder in this debate. I own guns, and I hunt. I want to be able to continue to do both, and I would like to be able to use a .22 pistol to hunt grouse. How do I get this and still make others feel safe? The only way I see is to prove it with testing, and not written tests, but shooting and handling tests. Now how much testing and how often becomes the next question, and who needs to do the testing? And who should be subjected to this testing? Is it just the people who want to hand gun hunt? Or should every firearms owner be required to meet some testing?

I think we need a poll to see where everyone sits.
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 12-30-2011, 02:32 PM
Scar270 Scar270 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 468
Default

What I meant was that I don't think you are someone who is for stopping me from hunting with a handgun just because some people are idiots.

Something to consider is not only what the requirements would be, but what about the logistics of carrying out the testing? How accessible do the tests need to be. Not everywhere has a readily available range they can use for testing. Would hunters have to pay the entire cost of this testing? Who would be authorized to do the testing, would the prices they charge be set, or up to them?

The cost aspect of any sort of training and meeting of requirements can quite quickly become cost prohibitive.
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 12-30-2011, 02:37 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,842
Default

Quote:
I want to be able to continue to do both, and I would like to be able to use a .22 pistol to hunt grouse. How do I get this and still make others feel safe? The only way I see is to prove it with testing, and not written tests, but shooting and handling tests.
The whole point of the Canadian Firearms Safety Course is to help to insure that people that are about to receive a PAL, can safely handle a firearm. The RPAL part of the course already includes a practical test in the safe handling of handguns, so more courses in safe gun handling would serve no practical purpose.

As far as a shooting test is concerned, it really proves very little as far as the safety of the public is concerned. In a hunting situation, the more accurate shooter, may actually be more unsafe with a firearm, than a person whose shooting skills are not as developed.

Quote:
Something to consider is not only what the requirements would be, but what about the logistics of carrying out the testing? How accessible do the tests need to be. Not everywhere has a readily available range they can use for testing. Would hunters have to pay the entire cost of this testing? Who would be authorized to do the testing, would the prices they charge be set, or up to them?

The cost aspect of any sort of training and meeting of requirements can quite quickly become cost prohibitive.
This is something that the people that are proposing the testing may be counting on.
The more difficult , and costly that it is to comply with such testing, the less likely some people will bother to even attempt to complete the testing. That is the tactic that the government chose when they passed some of the existing laws.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.

Last edited by elkhunter11; 12-30-2011 at 02:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 12-30-2011, 02:56 PM
rwm1273 rwm1273 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Deadmonton
Posts: 6,368
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
The whole point of the Canadian Firearms Safety Course is to help to insure that people that are about to receive a PAL, can safely handle a firearm. The RPAL part of the course already includes a practical test in the safe handling of handguns, so more courses in safe gun handling would serve no practical purpose.

As far as a shooting test is concerned, it really proves very little as far as the safety of the public is concerned. In a hunting situation, the more accurate shooter, may actually be more unsafe with a firearm, than a person whose shooting skills are not as developed.



This is something that the people that are proposing the testing may be counting on.
The more difficult , and costly that it is to comply with such testing, the less likely some people will bother to even attempt to complete the testing. That is the tactic that the government chose when they passed some of the existing laws.
First off I am not proposing testing just to limit others from hunting. I merely know that it will be an uphill battle to get a bill passed unless there is some give from us, as the antis are all about take.

I find the RPAL course I took (ok it was pre RPAL) was not that involved. Yes I handled a revolver, an automatic, and a double action revolver. Did I know how each felt when shot? No because I did not shoot one there. I know I don't like the .44 mag when I shot my buddys. I have lots of automatics. 3 Tokerovs, a couple .22, a .45, 2 .40s, and several other 9mms, and will get more. Each one shoots differently, and each took some time to learn at the range. My course only taught me how to hold the pistol. It didn't teach me how to clear a live round that jammed. It didn't teach me to recognize what a hung fire or a underpowered shot was. It did not teach me what the recoil forces would be like, and how they affected my ability to hold the pistol.

The only thing an RPAL course teaches is how to hold an unloaded/deactivated pistol properly. Yes a real pistol is similar, but not the same. For some that makes a difference.

I beg to differ about an inexperienced shooter being safer than an accurate shooter. To be an accurate shooter takes practice. Practice is directly related to skill. Skill is directly related to safety.
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 12-30-2011, 03:10 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,842
Default

Quote:
I beg to differ about an inexperienced shooter being safer than an accurate shooter. To be an accurate shooter takes practice. Practice is directly related to skill. Skill is directly related to safety.
__________________
Some people have been hunting a long time, and are very safe hunters, but that doesn't guarantee that they will be the best shots if they take up handgun hunting. Other people do a lot of handgun shooting at the range, and can shoot well, but some have little hunting experience, and as such may be more likely to do something that may not be safe. I have seen people get buck fever and do some very dangerous things because they weren't thinking straight, and more shooting practice at a range won't prevent that.
So no, safety isn't necessarily dependent on a persons shooting skills.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 12-30-2011, 03:28 PM
rwm1273 rwm1273 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Deadmonton
Posts: 6,368
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
Some people have been hunting a long time, and are very safe hunters, but that doesn't guarantee that they will be the best shots if they take up handgun hunting. Other people do a lot of handgun shooting at the range, and can shoot well, but some have little hunting experience, and as such may be more likely to do something that may not be safe. I have seen people get buck fever and do some very dangerous things because they weren't thinking straight, and more shooting practice at a range won't prevent that.
So no, safety isn't necessarily dependent on a persons shooting skills.
No, but practice is directly related to safety the same as skill is related to practice.

A person who is a pistol shooter but has never hunted will still need to have to take a hunting course to be able to buy tags. And those who have experience shooting already know what a bullet can do. Hunters more so than target shooters.
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 12-30-2011, 03:55 PM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,842
Default

Quote:
A person who is a pistol shooter but has never hunted will still need to have to take a hunting course to be able to buy tags.
Exactly why they don't need any more testing than the qualifications that already exist.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 12-30-2011, 05:28 PM
Camp Cook Camp Cook is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: BC
Posts: 217
Default

All steps/proficiency test/phone interview are already in place with the CFC/RCMP to get an Authorization to Carry handguns in remote wilderness areas and to get an Authorization to Transport to remote wilderness areas.

Even though I consider these steps a foolish put into place by anti waste of time I would not have an issue with having to go thru these hoops to be legally allowed to hunt with my handguns...

That should appease everyone that is against handgun hunting because I do not hear anyone spewing against those like me that had/have remote area ATC's...
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 12-30-2011, 06:41 PM
Lonnie Lonnie is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,709
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp Cook View Post
All steps/proficiency test/phone interview are already in place with the CFC/RCMP to get an Authorization to Carry handguns in remote wilderness areas and to get an Authorization to Transport to remote wilderness areas.

Even though I consider these steps a foolish put into place by anti waste of time I would not have an issue with having to go thru these hoops to be legally allowed to hunt with my handguns...

That should appease everyone that is against handgun hunting because I do not hear anyone spewing against those like me that had/have remote area ATC's...
and when you were in these remote places who was there to care weather you used a handgun or rifle for camp meat. to me remote wilderness means your miles from any civilized place and not likly to meet a bunch of people unless on the way in or out such as tree planters.
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 12-30-2011, 06:53 PM
Camp Cook Camp Cook is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: BC
Posts: 217
Default

Not neccasarily remote = uninhabited wilderness could be minutes out of town could be more could be just stopping on the side of the for example Sea to Sky Hwy between Vancouver and Whistler or driving minutes out of Whitecourt loading & putting your handgun into your holster and walking into the bush.

I even carried during hunting season when I had a rifle with me or when I was fishing on a remote river or lake.

Hunting/fishing/ATC are seperate licenses that covered the activities I was doing at the time.
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 12-30-2011, 08:35 PM
fordtruckin's Avatar
fordtruckin fordtruckin is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: In the woods
Posts: 8,923
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gitrdun View Post
The largest majority of long gun packing hunters that I've encountered in the last 3 years aren't matured enough to bear such a responsiblitly....thus nevertheless a handgun. There is no way to train stupid outta these people. I wouldn't have a problem with handgunhunting if I could rely on folks to act responsibly. That hasn't been the case, thus I stand where I'm at.

I'm done with this. You know where I stand!
Perhaps you should look for a new area to hunt in if you are having such issues. Just a thought...

Quote:
Originally Posted by beansgunsghandi View Post
I do think a lot of hunting in Alberta is done in ways that simply do not fit into what I'd call a "modern" view. Driving quads or trucks all over hell, chopping down trees to hang wall tents from and so on are practices that went out of fashion in the rest of the outdoor world decades ago. If we want to hunt in an increasingly populated Alberta then we likely want to start being seen as reasonable outdoor users, not a bunch of yahoos. Handgun hunting is not gong to be seen as real reasonable to most of our fellow Canadians. You can now resume attacking me personally, or think about what the above means for us. I want to preserve hunting access, not get banned along with the quads etc. that are eventually going to get tossed off public land as they have in so much of the US, Europe and elsewhere.
When was the last time You hunted public land in the USA? Last I checked unless there were specific restrictions (no vehicles/weapon restriction zones) or in an area such as a national or state park, you were free to hunt. Such as National Forests, BLM land, State land, Corps of Engineers Land ect...
__________________
I feel I was denied, critical, need to know Information!
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 12-30-2011, 08:43 PM
guywiththemule guywiththemule is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,604
Default My position...

I am 100% in favour of handgun hunting in Alberta(even though I probably wouldn`t hunt big game with one,but maybe just gophers or rabbits). If the anti`s and closet liberals on this board would like to restrict something maybe they could restrict fat people from going to Mcdonalds or Wendys more than once a week
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 01-03-2012, 08:28 AM
Rocky7's Avatar
Rocky7 Rocky7 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 5,062
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scar270 View Post
Interesting that in my discussion with a SRD guy I was told that my cause basically doesn't have enough people interested in it to get it through, so I pointed out that just myself managed to get a law created, so why couldn't I get one repealed. I think he saw my point.

So if anyone say's one person can't make a difference, they are wrong.
If you can do so, why not post contact particulars for this guy? I, for one, would call him. Maybe others would, too. Might not get the law changed, but at least he'd know there are "enough people interested" and that news might get farther up the food chain in Edmonton.

We are a motley crew of different ideas and willingness but with some common interests. I used to think it would naturally help to have one, giant gun organization. There's a logical argument for that. But I've changed my mind - I think this country has too much history of divide-and-conquer politics, too many regional differences to manage one, or even two, big organizations. The big ones are good but need help. Furthermore, when I look at the U.S., I see somewhere over 200 gun organizations. We all know about the big one, but there are plenty more. That's worth considering because they've been a lot more successful than we have. I've also looked at how our opponents have been successful. They hived off into several clone organizations and I think it gave the media and politicians the appearance of a groundswell. It never hurts to consider others' successes and how they did it. So, I'd like to see many gun advocacy organizations and I think they will need to be regional in order to find enough common ground and common politics to be effective. That would also give us many laboratories to try things and learn what works, what doesn't. It would give different homes for different folks. The big orgs don't need to be affected by that and in fact I think they would be helped.

Thanks for your efforts, Scar270.

You might see your effort as a failure, but I don't. It is never a failure when you stand up. That eventually makes for better gun laws and makes for a better society along the way. Truck on.
__________________
"If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?'" - J.W.
God made man. Sam Colt made them equal.
Make Alberta a better place. Have your liberal spayed or neutered.
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 01-03-2012, 09:45 AM
Scar270 Scar270 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 468
Default

I don't consider it a failure yet, just a set back. I think some people in SRD think I'll go away if they pass this law.

However now they just made me more determined, not only to get the handgun restriction removed, but to show off how terrible their decision making process was in this.

It's one thing to have to deal with existing laws that are silly, but when I see the sort of thought process that is going into the creation of a new law, I intend to point out the irrationality of it as often and as loudly as I can.

I think writing to the minister is probably the best way to get the point across. My contact in SRD wasn't the one that proposed it, was merely trying his best to explain it to me. I don't want to cause him a bunch of extra hassle himself, he was nice enough to contact me and have a chat about it. Anything that gets to the minister I'm fairly confident he will get to see as well.

If I find out who exactly came up with this ludicrous idea, that I will pass on. Right now I think their are a lot of SRD top staff need to hit the employment line if they really push this through. Not necessarily because they are passing a law I don't like, but because if this is the thought process they put into all the laws they put in place, they best be fired before they make any more decisions.
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 01-03-2012, 11:48 PM
Lonnie Lonnie is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,709
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scar270 View Post
I don't consider it a failure yet, just a set back. I think some people in SRD think I'll go away if they pass this law.

However now they just made me more determined, not only to get the handgun restriction removed, but to show off how terrible their decision making process was in this.

It's one thing to have to deal with existing laws that are silly, but when I see the sort of thought process that is going into the creation of a new law, I intend to point out the irrationality of it as often and as loudly as I can.

I think writing to the minister is probably the best way to get the point across. My contact in SRD wasn't the one that proposed it, was merely trying his best to explain it to me. I don't want to cause him a bunch of extra hassle himself, he was nice enough to contact me and have a chat about it. Anything that gets to the minister I'm fairly confident he will get to see as well.

If I find out who exactly came up with this ludicrous idea, that I will pass on. Right now I think their are a lot of SRD top staff need to hit the employment line if they really push this through. Not necessarily because they are passing a law I don't like, but because if this is the thought process they put into all the laws they put in place, they best be fired before they make any more decisions.
keep at it and if you need help post that you do and if you get it to a point that you need a lot of signatures to make the politicians listen I would be more than happy to do that to.
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 01-04-2012, 06:32 AM
rwm1273 rwm1273 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Deadmonton
Posts: 6,368
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonnie View Post
keep at it and if you need help post that you do and if you get it to a point that you need a lot of signatures to make the politicians listen I would be more than happy to do that to.
What works better are a lot of individual letters to the MLAs. If every one of them gets bombarded by a bunch of letters, then they need to address the issue. Once the issue gets raised is when there is a need to have a signature list.
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 01-04-2012, 08:17 AM
Rocky7's Avatar
Rocky7 Rocky7 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 5,062
Default

This is probably a good time to write letters, too.

The PC's are on the ropes and might now listen. Redford is a liberal, so I doubt it but it's worth trying. Politicians are a mercenary bunch.

The WRA is looking for power.
__________________
"If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?'" - J.W.
God made man. Sam Colt made them equal.
Make Alberta a better place. Have your liberal spayed or neutered.
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 01-04-2012, 08:37 AM
Scar270 Scar270 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 468
Default

Yeah right now headed for election politicians are probably going to at least listen to you. Between elections my MLA is a ghost, but right now hes on the radio bragging about being available every friday. This is the time to have a chat with them.
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 01-04-2012, 09:36 AM
Redfrog's Avatar
Redfrog Redfrog is offline
Gone Hunting
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Between Bodo and a hard place
Posts: 20,168
Default

Elkhunter, The further instruction and live firing will make a difference from a safety POV. I know this is true from 40 years of instructing on long guns.

Handling a firearm in a classroom is much different from firing on a range under strict and direct supervision of an instructor. The noise, smell, process are all stressors that come into play. When I took my classes to the trap range, I didn't care if they hit the clays, the point of the exercise was to be sure they didn't shoot anything else and to have them become comfortable with the firearms. It isn't a proficiency test, it a safety issue. The proficiency comes the same way it does with long guns. Practice, practice , practice.
__________________
I'm not lying!!! You are just experiencing it differently.


It isn't a question of who will allow me, but who will stop me.. Ayn Rand
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 01-04-2012, 10:22 AM
densa44 densa44 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: North of Cochrane
Posts: 6,649
Default Talk/write to the politicians

I think that is a good idea. A politician will say what ever he/she thinks will get them re-elected. That is not a bad thing, its how democracy works.

In this day in age, parties take poles on everything (see above for the reason) see if we can find out what the polls say.

What is your opinion on gun restrictions? more, the same , less.

Try the same questions with hand guns.

You might ask the Calgary Herald to use it as one of their daily polls. If they do, you had better vote because others who don't support you will vote for sure.

This will give everyone a pretty good idea of the chances of the government supporting this initiative.
Reply With Quote
  #201  
Old 01-04-2012, 12:50 PM
Rocky7's Avatar
Rocky7 Rocky7 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 5,062
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by densa44 View Post
You might ask the Calgary Herald to use it as one of their daily polls. If they do, you had better vote because others who don't support you will vote for sure.
Not a bad idea.

Wording the question would be important. Something like:

"Should qualified, properly licensed hunters be able to hunt with a handgun?"

I'd vote. Lots would. It would be interesting indeed.
__________________
"If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?'" - J.W.
God made man. Sam Colt made them equal.
Make Alberta a better place. Have your liberal spayed or neutered.
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 01-04-2012, 02:23 PM
rwm1273 rwm1273 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Deadmonton
Posts: 6,368
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redfrog View Post
Elkhunter, The further instruction and live firing will make a difference from a safety POV. I know this is true from 40 years of instructing on long guns.

Handling a firearm in a classroom is much different from firing on a range under strict and direct supervision of an instructor. The noise, smell, process are all stressors that come into play. When I took my classes to the trap range, I didn't care if they hit the clays, the point of the exercise was to be sure they didn't shoot anything else and to have them become comfortable with the firearms. It isn't a proficiency test, it a safety issue. The proficiency comes the same way it does with long guns. Practice, practice , practice.
This is exactly how I feel too. Just have yet been able to word smith it as well as you.
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 01-04-2012, 04:52 PM
densa44 densa44 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: North of Cochrane
Posts: 6,649
Smile Write your question.

Send it the Herald, now if it is not short, they may not use it at all or shorten the question themselves,so my suggestion is make it short yourself.

Should hand guns be allowed for hunting? Something like that, if you put in a lot of modifiers the editors will just cut it down.

Some of the radio stations do this sort of thing too, but with some off the wall DJ I'm not sure if it would be unbiased.
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 01-04-2012, 05:14 PM
Rocky7's Avatar
Rocky7 Rocky7 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 5,062
Default

What about that Fish & Game magazine? Would they run it....maybe with a short editorial piece setting out the history of the ban, etc.?
__________________
"If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?'" - J.W.
God made man. Sam Colt made them equal.
Make Alberta a better place. Have your liberal spayed or neutered.
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 01-05-2012, 01:54 AM
Lonnie Lonnie is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,709
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rwm1273 View Post
Now that is the conundrum. How do we protect the general population without stopping us from enjoying what we want to do?

I know when someone is pointing comments at me directly, and when the question is legitimate. I am a stake holder in this debate. I own guns, and I hunt. I want to be able to continue to do both, and I would like to be able to use a .22 pistol to hunt grouse. How do I get this and still make others feel safe? The only way I see is to prove it with testing, and not written tests, but shooting and handling tests. Now how much testing and how often becomes the next question, and who needs to do the testing? And who should be subjected to this testing? Is it just the people who want to hand gun hunt? Or should every firearms owner be required to meet some testing?

I think we need a poll to see where everyone sits.
how do you keep testing fair I have very expensive target pistols as well as some fun guns (single action revolvers) it is realy easy to shoot good targets at 50yrs. with proper target pistols not so easy with cowboy style 6 guns
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.