Do you agree with Canada's current firearms laws and regulations?

[Au revoir, Gopher]

Every now and then, I see someone on this forum say that they are a firearms owner and that they support our current laws and regulations regarding firearms. I always wonder "Why? What part of them do you believe are useful?", but I have never actually posed the question. So, here goes. Maybe this won't spiral out of control in less than 10 posts and we can actually debate the issues.

For those of you who say that you support Canada's current firearms laws and regulations, I have some question I would like you to answer.

Regarding firearms classifications

What makes one semi-automatic rifle chambered in 223 Remington a greater threat to public safety than another? In other words, why is the AR-15 restricted while the Mini-14 is non-restricted?

Why do restricted and non-restricted firearms have different storage and transportation requirements?

How does an authorization to transport enhance public safety?

Why are the only valid reasons to own restricted firearms target shooting and collecting? And why must the target shooting be done at an approved range? In other words, why can't a AR-15 be fired anywhere a Mini-14 can be fired?

How does registering firearms enhance public safety?

Regarding magazine restrictions

Do you have any evidence to support the notion that restricting magazine capacity improves public safety?

Regarding criminals with firearms

How does any of the above impact Canada's gang members and other career criminals? In other words do you believe that your typical gang member has a PAL? Do you believe he purchased his restricted firearm legally and has registered it? Do you think he has a valid ATT to take his restricted firearm to the mall or club or do a drive by shooting of a rival gang member's house/car? Assuming that he is unlicensed and in possession of an unregistered firearm, do you think that breaking another law (possession of prohibited device - an over capacity magazine) is going to bother him?

What impact would the current laws and regulations have had on the events at Ecole Polytechnique?

ARG

[Okotokian]

LOL This sort of feels like a guy challenging you to a fight, with 40 of his buddies standing behind him.... and him laying out the rules of the fight. You seem more interested in winning a pre-structured argument than actually learning anything.

Why not just ask people what parts of our firearms legislation regulations people are OK with, and why?

[CaberTosser]

I agree with licensing but classification should not even be a thing. There's no reason a 3" barreled .32 revolver should be prohibited. There's also no reason that an AR-15 should be restricted when one can buy a semi-auto .300 WSM Beretta over the counter. Basically good guys should be allowed to arm and protect themselves, while criminals and the criminally insane should be locked up for extended periods.

It should be legal to have any capacity magazine or even belt-fed for that matter. Screen for nut jobs and enforce heavily. Terrorists in Europe are amassing bigger body counts with large trucks than they ever managed before using guns.

Just today there was a post on the Calgary Polices Facebook feed announcing the arrest of two middle eastern drug dealers who had imported some narcotic that's used as a cutting agent for cocaine, among other contraband they found a loaded Glock 17 which curiously had 5 or 6 rounds of FMJ training ammo and one Hornady XTP cartridge set next to it for he photo op. Among the charges were posession of a firearm while already prohibited. Duh, just don't let the turds back out Judge Genius!! If they weren't born here then air drop them over where they came from

[Gray Wolf]

.
Here we go, chewing on the same old piece of gristle again!





Fill yer boots, boys!

[elkhunter11]

C-68 was a total disaster, there was no common sense involved in the drafting of the regulations, or in the classification system. The RCMP should have no involvement or imfluence in the classification system, or in the drafting of legislation.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by Gray Wolf

.
Here we go, chewing on the same old piece of gristle again!





Fill yer boots, boys!

LOL True. Let's jut say "We like guns" and leave it at that.

[CaberTosser]

Or we could note that most of C-68 was drafted to make firearms ownership enough of a hassle that there would be a lot of firearms owners lost by attrition. They knew outright bans would not be tolerated so they figured to first reduce our numbers with PITA ATT's and such and then strike for a complete ban later when the firearms community has been partially bled out. No ATT has ever prevented a crime. No classification has ever prevented a crime as a criminal will use any firearm available to them, they don't go "I was gonna blow away our rival gang but all I could find was this 2.5" barreled .25 auto and I don't have a 12.6 endorsement on my PAL" or "I wanted to rob the bank but couldn't get an ATT as the CFC was closed for the day"

[covey ridge]

I do not agree with all of the currant laws and regs. Who does? There is no new light here. Same old same old. I would rather argue about the caramilk secret that get into this stuff again. Good luck.

[NSDucknut]

Short answer- No.

Long answer- NOOOOO

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by NSDucknut

Short answer- No.

Long answer- NOOOOO

Well said

[JWCalgary]

Same short answer is no.

Now's the time to start the conversation with your mp. Most likely the conservatives will be in power after the next election and they need to be thinking of solutions now.

Sent from my SM-G530W using Tapatalk

[Newview01]

A few months back someone posted a poll with questions concerning this. There are most certainly some on this forum who are happy with current regs, and there were some who would support tighter regs.

[58thecat]

It's written by a group of people who never adventure past city limits and who wear skinny jeans....saw that type of person try to host hockey night in Canada...joke.

[Dick284]

Hard No!

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by Newview01

A few months back someone posted a poll with questions concerning this. There are most certainly some on this forum who are happy with current regs, and there were some who would support tighter regs.

You seem to like to put that statement in every time there is a controversial issue on here.
What's your point?
Some People probably do want tighter regulations , same as political affiliations , Who cares if they are not the same as your party .
Dp you expect the other members here to drum them off the forum?
I don't like most of our gun laws either but the fact remains that it is far Seirra niw to get a restricted permit fir wilderness carry or a basic restricted permit that if ever was before .
Doesn't mean our gun laws on the whole don't suck slough water however .......
Cat

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

You seem to like to put that statement in every time there is a controversial issue on here.
What's your point?
Some People probably do want tighter regulations , same as political affiliations , Who cares if they are not the same as your party .
Dp you expect the other members here to drum them off the forum?
I don't like most of our gun laws either but the fact remains that it is far Seirra niw to get a restricted permit fir wilderness carry or a basic restricted permit that if ever was before .
Doesn't mean our gun laws don't suck slough water however .......
Cat

My point is that I find it ridiculous that people want tighter regs. The vast majority of firearm owners know that regulations are a joke. People who support tighter regs are misinformed, and they should know that. Obviously they are entitled to their opinion as we all are, but when it comes to firearms laws and effectiveness and curbing crime, facts should outweigh opinions.

As far as wilderness carry, I am pretty sure it would be impossible for the majority of us to get one. Which IMO is also ridiculous.

And I might ask, what is your point? Is there something I am saying that is against forum rules?

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by Newview01

My point is that I find it ridiculous that people want tighter regs. The vast majority of firearm owners know that regulations are a joke. People who support tighter regs are misinformed, and they should know that. Obviously they are entitled to their opinion as we all are, but when it comes to firearms laws and effectiveness and curbing crime, facts should outweigh opinions.

As far as wilderness carry, I am pretty sure it would be impossible for the majority of us to get one. Which IMO is also ridiculous.

And I might ask, what is your point? Is there something I am saying that is against forum rules?

My point?
I find it strange that you often make that rediculous comment even though it is as obvious to everyone else here that it is common knowledge .
You may think Wilderness carry permits are rediculous and that is your right to but those that use them do not
Cat

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

My point?
I find it strange that you often make that rediculous comment even though it is as obvious to everyone else here that it is common knowledge .
You may think Wilderness carry permits are rediculous and that is your right to but those that use them do not
Cat

I stated that I thought it was ridiculous that I would not be able to get a wilderness carry permit, not that I thought the permit itself was ridiculous.

And it must not be common knowledge to everyone else, because as I said before, there were clearly people who supported more regulations.

[Groundhogger]

I almost never enter these sorts of conversations (online or otherwise) unless someone who knows nothing about gun laws in Canada suggests we need MORE/TIGHTER laws in the wake of a gun crime in the news. I loathe those sorts of knee-jerk talking points. If I get challenged about my own interests in that context, I normally reply saying; "tell me everything you know about gun laws in Canada".

Simply put~I resent the restrictions on Canadian gun owners because the law pretends to protect people when in fact...they only impact law-abiding gun owners in the first place. No irony there. Looking for fairness in our law's is a battle I don't believe we can win. The guys that hold the cards want to get re-elected and the general public is fed NOTHING but a diet of bad-news gun stories.

[qwert]

None of us desires any misuse of firearms, or is in favour of firearm access for criminals or those with mental issues.
Unfortunately few in our society have real experience or knowledge of the failures or intentional misuse of Government restrictions on citizen ownership and use.

The recent and current Government actions in Venezuela are very troubling.
http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showt...49#post3523349

https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/ve...ialist-regime/

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-new...tance_04262017

I suspect this is not going to end well for Venezuelans.

Calls for much needed ‘gun control’ always precede
restrictions and registration of citizen owned firearms,
and then prohibitions and confiscation,
soon followed by a very unhappy citizenry.

Always ask yourself,
what is it that ‘they’ wish to do,
that ‘they’ cannot easily do to an armed citizenry.

https://www.rutherford.org/publicati...t_and_its_sile

Good Luck to us all, YMMV.

[slough shark]

Tweaking some aspects would go a long way to both making things safer and giving more rights. Wilderness carry permits should be a thing and not to difficult to obtain if you've already gone through the hoops to get your restricted license. On the flip side I'd like to see something return, the interview from an rcmp officer before you get your license. Submitting paperwork to miramichi and checking criminal history doesn't tell enough info imho. Those are a few tweaks I can think of off the top of my head.

[bobtodrick]

Same here.
I'm all for rigorous testing and background checks.
But if I pass a rigorous check why do they assume that though I am safe with a .300WinMag, if you put a Walther PPK (for example) I am going to rob the local 7/11 or store it so poorly that it is easily stolen. Who doesn't want the gun James Bond used?

[Redfrog]

Originally Posted by bobtodrick

Same here.
I'm all for rigorous testing and background checks.
But if I pass a rigorous check why do they assume that though I am safe with a .300WinMag, if you put a Walther PPK (for example) I am going to rob the local 7/11 or store it so poorly that it is easily stolen. Who doesn't want the gun James Bond used?

Do you feel the same about driving licenses? More accidents and mayhem with vehicles and yet some are designed to break the traffic laws.

[JustMe]

Wow, a lot of considerations would have to go into answering this question with worthy responses. I have no problem with our current rules for what are generally considered "hunting" arms. I personally am not a fan of handguns or what the public's perception of "assault" weapons in the hands of the general public as I don't see them really serving any realistic purpose, other than for bonifide collectors and such. We're never going to legally, again generally, carry handguns on a day to day basis, so why have them other than perhaps going once a year to a sanctioned range? Again, not many do any serious hunting with a AR-15 etc so what purpose?

Generally I think the laws on the books are sufficient. What we lack is enforcement and worthwhile penalties for breaking those rules. Again most outdoorsmen aren't the problem, but the unregistered, illegal firearms in the hands of the criminals are. However, police forces throughout Canada are too short staffed to provide any real policing any longer and the various levels of governments don't want to address this problem because raising taxes to provide service would cost them votes. Sad state of affairs.

One thing to remember, we are not the US with the right to bear arms written into our constitution. If you're looking for that, beat look for a job in the US and apply for citizenship.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[catnthehat]

Many people compete on a regular basis with both semi auto service rifles and hand guns , not all people go the the range " once a year".
Cat

[scalerman]

Personally I have no real problem with the PAL and RPAL. At least we know that every person that legally obtains a firearm has a minimum level of training. Beyond that I don't feel that there should be any restrictions on rifles and shotguns. I am not a "handgun guy". If owning one wasn't such hassle I would probably be more interested. I wouldn't mind to be able to carry one while I am bowhunting in case Mr. Bruin decides he wants a piece of me. Making criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens is idiotic (C-68). I am a firm believer that guns do not kill people any more than cutlery makes people fat.

[bobtodrick]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

Do you feel the same about driving licenses? More accidents and mayhem with vehicles and yet some are designed to break the traffic laws.

Yes I do.
Check out Finland. Getting a drivers license there entails 20+ hours of intensive on road instruction, part of which is on a wet skid pad learning skid control.
This is in addition to 20 hours of theory.
Testing is done by government agencies, not privitised as here.
After you check that out check out motor sports in Finland. They have the highest percentage of world champion rally drivers and for their population have a very large number of F1 drivers.
Per capita their are more performance cars in Finland than here.
Yet they have one of the lowest accident rates in Europe and far lower than Canada/U.S.
Because they are properly taught/licenced.

[Twobucks]

I'd like to see it easier to carry a handgun in the backcountry and I'd also like to see suppressors made legal. Otherwise I don't feel too bothered by current laws.

[slickwilly]

I'll bite.

I like our licensing system for the most part. I like that it regulates the person and not the gun. In the US, where you put in for a background check on every gun purchase, it seems extremely tedious. Here, you go through a fairly rigorous test (there are issues for sure), and then once you have the license, you can walk in and buy a gun over the counter.

As for why I think licensing like this is important, for two reasons: it keeps guns away from those that would hurt themselves and others. Suicide is a major component of gun deaths, and it is way under-reported. Most people that end up killing themselves with a gun have had a prior suicide attempt, and people do not just "find another way". Guns are extremely effective at killing things, including yourself, meaning that even a 5 minute window of depression with a gun in the closet can be fatal, while most other options take long enough to get help, or are likely to be ineffective. Obviously, people have lots of ways to kill themselves, but I think the stats show that this is a very easy way to save a lot of lives. The same thing happened with suicide-proofing a number of famous bridges. It didn't just stop suicides at that bridge, it actually brought down suicides in the whole city.
A good read on suicide by gun: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...de-in-wyoming/

I have some issues with the classification system, and I agree that classifying one gun as restricted because of its reputation doesn't make any sense. But, I do enjoy our society that doesn't have handguns everywhere. I have never felt so afraid for my life that I wish I had a gun, but I have seen enough road rage to not want those people to have a gun in the glovebox.

[Alephnaught]

Originally Posted by slickwilly

I'll bite.

I like our licensing system for the most part. I like that it regulates the person and not the gun. In the US, where you put in for a background check on every gun purchase, it seems extremely tedious. Here, you go through a fairly rigorous test (there are issues for sure), and then once you have the license, you can walk in and buy a gun over the counter.

As for why I think licensing like this is important, for two reasons: it keeps guns away from those that would hurt themselves and others. Suicide is a major component of gun deaths, and it is way under-reported. Most people that end up killing themselves with a gun have had a prior suicide attempt, and people do not just "find another way". Guns are extremely effective at killing things, including yourself, meaning that even a 5 minute window of depression with a gun in the closet can be fatal, while most other options take long enough to get help, or are likely to be ineffective. Obviously, people have lots of ways to kill themselves, but I think the stats show that this is a very easy way to save a lot of lives. The same thing happened with suicide-proofing a number of famous bridges. It didn't just stop suicides at that bridge, it actually brought down suicides in the whole city.

I generally agree with you here.

I often see the fact that firearms ownership not being a right in Canada criticized as being a fundamental failing of our system. I couldn't disagree more strenuously - that we don't have the encumbrance of gun ownership as being a 'right' on par with liberty or access to healthcare, a meaningful discussion becomes possible. A fundamental truth of that discussion is that not everybody is up to the responsibility of owning a firearm. Chaps some asses to say that I'm sure, but it doesn't make it any less true.

Suicide is one strong component & you speak to that quite convincingly, mental illness is another. The simple ability to act safely is not possible by some, whether it's a maturity or attitude thing, or it's as a result of a dementia-related illness. Not having the power of sight makes firearms ownership beyond being a collector improbably. Having a seizure-involved illness may disqualify your application for a licence. Or, switching gears, a demonstrated history of violence can be a potent argument you're not up to the task.

Once we reconcile ourselves to this basic reality, a reasonable discussion becomes possible.

Now here's where I start to part ways with our current laws though - unless sufficient grounds exist for a person to be denied licensure, said licensure should proceed without delay. I like the idea of renewal - prompting a regular review - but at a longer interval. Every 10 years would be good.

Also, the criminalization aspects of ownership need to be done away with.

Regulations aimed at safety need to be truly based on a demonstrated need, and not on some long-game agenda. They must be clearly evidence-based and subject to a economics justification for the measure - intervention x costs y amount of money and solves problem z, which is responsible for costs a through i which aggregately cost ___ to Canadians.

Restrictions should be based on use actual use statistics for that firearm type - and be related to use by licensed firearms owners, not some criminal element who happens to be using that as their tool. It makes no sense to restrict my ownership of firearm type ___ if only a vanishingly small proportion of their use is by licensed firearms owners and the rest happens as a result of gang violence over the drug trade by already-illegal users of that firearm.