Firearms Ownership in Canada

[elkhunter11]

Since the other poll was worded in a way that was intended to produce the results the person posting the poll wanted to see, I will post one with more realistic choices.

[rugatika]

yes

[bb356]

Cool ... a poll that I can post on ... the other one ..... well sucked .

[HyperMOA]

Did I miss something? Did the other poll magically disappear?

[Ken07AOVette]

I asked for it to be deleted.

Happy place for everyone.

[58thecat]

Buy,own and use what you want.

Open carry, concealed carry too

Of course with all the red tape certification, authorization etc...

[silverdoctor]

The more I read from firearms owners, the more I start leaning the other way. People aren't fit to own firearms in Canada. "Please sir, can I have some more". Starting to read like an Oliver Twist novel.

You want firearms as a right in Canada? What a joke. You're bought and sold for votes. Harper could have destroyed the firearms act. Why didn't he? Political suicide, that's what it would be.

You want your firearms, start acting like it. Man up. Firearms owners are the most divided group I've ever seen in this country, and you're being beaten by a bunch of millenial snowflakes, leftist retards and SJW's.

[Newview01]

It is interesting how quickly people are willing to give up someone else's rights.

[elkdump]

I plead the 5 th,,

[play.soccer]

Still some fudds runnin' around thinking handguns and black rifles have no place here. (As seen on poll results)

[HighlandHeart]

All firearms with no restriction on type? The wife will hate the .50 cal I get her for her birthday if that day ever comes.

[elkhunter11]

While very few people are 100% anti firearms to the point of not allowing any citizen to own firearms of any kind, a large amount of people are also not 100% pro firearm , which is allowing anyone to own and use any type of firearm, at any location, with no regulation at all. Most people that I know, myself included, fall somewhere in between the two extremes. Canadian laws fall somewhere in the middle, with citizens being allowed to own some firearms, with fairly strict regulations as to who can use these firearms, and where and when they can be used. As such, our laws are not really anti gun, but they aren't strongly pro gun either. The USA regulations including the right to bear arms, places them closer to being pro gun, and countries like Australia have regulations that are much more anti gun.
Dur to the limitations on characters for each choice, I could not go into more detail with each choice, such as including licensing, or registration, or open carry or concealed carry, but even so, the poll shows that the AO members do feel differently about the type f firearms regulations that we should have in Canada. Most members appear to lean towards the pro gun side, but others indicate that they are in favor of limiting which firearms we can own, and where we can use them, and they support regulations such as those we presently have in place, which places them closer to the anti gun side.

The problem with accepting the kind of regulations that we now have s that once people are forced to accept these regulations, it becomes easier and easier to get them to accept more restrictive firearms regulations, such as the much more anti gun regulations that Australia has. For this reason, the extreme anti firearms groups( including those in the government) typically employ a strategy of asking for progressively more and more restrictive regulations over a longer time period, so that there is less resistance to their final goal, which is total disarming all civilians. And this is why Trudeau has changed the makeup of the people overseeing our firearms regulations. He wants to make it appear that it is the citizens of Canada want stricter firearms regulations, rather than just having his government banning more firearms, and further restricting the use f the remaining firearms. The truth is that he has carefully chosen people that will act on emotion and paranoia, rather than on common sense and reason, and as such, they will pursue the agenda that he wants to see enacted.

[Newview01]

elkhunter11, there are a lot of people who will tell you to take your tinfoil hat off. The reality is that you are right. It is death by 1000 cuts. If you want to keep your pellet gun, fight for machine guns.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-...itics-35668626

It will be a criminal offence to have an air weapon without a licence or permit from 31 December 2016.

[Gifted Intuitive]

Regulations in Canada are intended to limit or eliminate the purpose of guns.
If you confiscate the purpose of a gun you confiscate the gun.
Transport Permits were once issued for western Canada. That got changed to permits issued for each province. If you wanted to go to a competition in another province you had to apply for a permit. The permits were not issued until the after the competion. This eliminated a very popular sport.
Shooting ranges had a purpose of developing marksmanship skills to make ethical and humane hunting shots. This connected shooting ranges to Fish and Game organizations. Fish & Game will not challenge the RCMP restrictions so money from gun hunters will benefit binocular/camera hunters.
There was a request by Fish and Game to take a youth hunting. Well where would you take this youth to develop marksmanship skills ? If you went to a shooting range you can only practise shooting at a piece of paper while sitting on a chair. Many shooting ranges do not allow non-members to shoot.


A book has* been published titled "Gun Control in the Third Reich", written by Stephen Halbrook.

I am going to provide part of a book report written by Dave Kopel.

*...Over the next five years , the Nazis worked methodically to force all elements of society into line.. For example, independent gun or shooting sports clubs were outlawed. ..., clubs were registered with the state , ruled by a Nazi political officer. Many clubs disbanded instead.

The 1938 law...further ensuring that only the Nazis and their politically reliable supporters could have arms.

... In October 1938, the Nazis used the arms registration lists to complete the disarmament of the Jews.

....As for the rest of the German population, resistance might have been possible in 1933-34, but now it was too late. The nation that had once been amongst the most civilized and tolerant in the world was now disarmed and supine....* end of quote.

Please focus on the phrase "disarmed and supine". Supine pronounced
'syoo-pyn' means 'failing to act as a result of laziness or lack of courage'
or 'mentally or morally slack'.

* This book is a 'must read' for those struggling

[Okotokian]

I'm generally OK/ambivalent with the current arrangement with a few exceptions (though not OK at all with the direction things seem to be going).

Exceptions? Personally I have no problem with restricted firearms use on your own land... and carrying for protection in public wilderness lands.... gee, does that equal everywhere then? LOL well, I'm not quite ready for any gun, anywhere, any time. But I'd be fine with a bit of loosening. And also see no reason to make any semi-auto long gun restricted. So I voted for "Restricted firearms should not be limited to approved ranges".

[IceDemeter]

I think that the majority of people base their opinion of firearms on their personal life experience, lifestyle, and the media / peer bias that they grew up with. This means that most of the folks here in Canada - those with an urban upbringing who think that a trip to the city park is an "outdoors" experience - never actually THINK about firearms since they don't have any interest in them, haven't had a use for them in their lifestyle, and don't really know anyone who uses them on a regular basis. They may have some vague idea that farmers might use a firearm for some reason, but don't really know what, and couldn't tell you the difference between a shotgun and a rifle. Those who play first-person shooter video games likely have the best knowledge of firearms from this group, but it wouldn't occur to them to include the sport in their real life since their "experience" is all artificial violence.

Our governments and media, just like those of most of the Western countries, have done a really good job over the past decades of not just disarming most of the population, but of dismissing the idea of firearms being a regular tool of every-day life and demonizing them instead as being weapons of evil-doers. For the minority looking for a "cause" to be heard, it's an easy bandwagon to jump on to be obnoxiously "anti-gun", and to have their voices heard and interpreted as a majority, because that is the direction that the government wants to support. For those who look past the media spins, it can be really quite surprising how much support there is for firearm ownership and hunting / shooting sports in all of the European countries as well as Australia and New Zealand - even though we generally only hear about how they don't have firearms and are disgusted and shocked at how available they are in the USA.

It seems that in reality, the majority has no firm opinion on the matter because they never actually think about firearms. When first questioned about it, they come out with a vaguely "anti" sentiment because of media conditioning and assume that legal firearms ownership is really rare since they don't know anyone who has any. I find most folks in this group turn out to be quite supportive when the reality of firearm ownership and use is explained to them.

The one area of agreement that I have found in most conversations is that there needs to be more publicity about the levels of safety training required for firearm ownership and use, and that the difference between a "restricted" and "non-restricted" firearm should be more a matter of level of safety training required. If this were more publicized, along with more open discussion about the heritage aspects of hunting/shooting, the day-to-day pleasure of the sports side, and the necessity as a tool in vermin and animal control, then I think we'd be seeing more support of firearm ownership from the silent majority. What they see needs to be more along the lines of happy invitations to share our pleasure and understand the lessons and responsibility that we learn in the sport, instead of rabid ranting equivalent to the worst of the "anti's".

I find very few people in urban centres who think about firearms in terms of personal protection, or who feel unsafe without firearms, or who feel that they need to take personal responsibility for their own safety since they have the assurance of nearby police / fire / rescue services. It really is mostly folks who spend time alone in the back-country or who live in rural areas far away from the "protections" assumed in urban centres who want and need to take responsibility for their own protection.

[HyperMOA]

My vote was for restricted should not be restricted to ranges. Or whatever that said. Would I love to own my very own MP5, yes. Would it be a fun toy, yes. Should any Canadian be able to own one, I dunno. Should qualified individuals, sure.

However, if the government has made sure that I have taken firearm training deeming me competent with non-restricted and restricted firearms. They then took my application and vetted me to be stable enough to own non-restricted and restricted firearms. Why is it that I can walk through the bush with a .50BMG long rifle that has a deadly range of miles, yet I can't carry a sidearm with quite limited range? Why is it OK to carry a mini-14 or Benelli MR1, but an AR is right out of the question? It makes no sense.

[Andrzej]

i would like to see another option in this pool
Regulations as they are now are acceptable ( not perfect ).
Andrew

[Norwest Alta]

Who are the 37 lefties? Same ones that think stealing is alright?

[Twisted Canuck]

I think that the definitions of 'restricted' and 'prohibited' need to be changed first, then we can discuss firearm usage. I think handgun use on private land would be great, including using a snub nose .38 if you felt the urge. I think the idea of 'any gun, any where' would not be a brilliant idea, for the possible ensuing madness that might follow. Let's face it, having AA-12 fully automatic shotguns available for everyone might not seem like such a good idea if the wrong individuals (mentally unstable, or with violent ideology, or some gang bangers with ideas of monopoly) got their hands on one and went full on Rambo in public. Some limits actually would make sense. Even though I'd love to own an AA-12. Or an M134 minigun>

I would stipulate that the legal ownership of firearms should be permitted after requisite training and testing, and from some of the things I've seen and heard at the range and on various forums....the testing isn't making people that much smarter or safer. More stringent training and testing, then, relax with all the dumb restrictions.

[Bub]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

I'm generally OK/ambivalent with the current arrangement with a few exceptions (though not OK at all with the direction things seem to be going).

Exceptions? Personally I have no problem with restricted firearms use on your own land... and carrying for protection in public wilderness lands.... gee, does that equal everywhere then? LOL well, I'm not quite ready for any gun, anywhere, any time. But I'd be fine with a bit of loosening. And also see no reason to make any semi-auto long gun restricted.

Somewhat, rather mostly, agree with this. Overall, I noticed I tend to agree with what Oko has to say in (definitely not all but) many of his posts.

Originally Posted by Andrzej

i would like to see another option in this pool
Regulations as they are now are acceptable ( not perfect ).

Given the existing options, this would have been my choice.

Also, elkhunter said in the op that

the other poll was worded in a way that was intended to produce the results the person posting the poll wanted to see, I will post one with more realistic choices.

I have not seen the other poll and do not know what the choices were, but this one seems fairly biased as well. Maybe biased is a wrong term and I would have voted for restricted firearms should not be limited to approved ranges, but there is more interpretation in it than I am comfortable with.

More importantly, remember where you are and results of the poll are pretty obvious to begin with

Lastly, lol at Norwest Alta person.

[Newview01]

Would I be wrong if I stated that a lot of you are against America type firearms laws because you don't trust the people around you to not go on a shooting spree?

[Twisted Canuck]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Would I be wrong if I stated that a lot of you are against America type firearms laws because you don't trust the people around you to not go on a shooting spree?

Contrary to what you may have understood from my post in particular, I'm not worried about people going on a crazy shooting spree, as it happens very rarely. However, when it does happen (as it recently did in a Mosque) I prefer for the perpetrator to not have access to AA-12s or M134 miniguns. Bad enough that six people die, an AA-12 with buckshot and you have order of magnitude carnage.

And I can see you lining up your next point, 'if we had American style gun laws, one good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun'. And I tend to agree with that point. I'm not against CCW permits, to those who are screened and qualified.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck

Contrary to what you may have understood from my post in particular, I'm not worried about people going on a crazy shooting spree, as it happens very rarely. However, when it does happen (as it recently did in a Mosque) I prefer for the perpetrator to not have access to AA-12s or M134 miniguns. Bad enough that six people die, an AA-12 with buckshot and you have order of magnitude carnage.

And I can see you lining up your next point, 'if we had American style gun laws, one good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun'. And I tend to agree with that point. I'm not against CCW permits, to those who are screened and qualified.

I wasn't directing this to you in particular.

One point I would like to make, American regs don't allow for Shooter McSpree to buy a Minigun. An AA-12, with great difficulty to the point where a Mini-14 would be a more effective choice. See what I did there?

Firearms laws don't affect Shooter McSpree. They affect law abiding, peace loving, neighbor protecting people.

[Twisted Canuck]

Originally Posted by Newview01

I wasn't directing this to you in particular.

One point I would like to make, American regs don't allow for Shooter McSpree to buy a Minigun. An AA-12, with great difficulty to the point where a Mini-14 would be a more effective choice. See what I did there?

Firearms laws don't affect Shooter McSpree. They affect law abiding, peace loving, neighbor protecting people.

I didn't take it that you were singling me out, I just wanted to respond. And again, I tend to agree with you, though an AA-12 is a very manageable firearm for just about anyone by design (though it is heavy), and would do far more damage in a crowd than a mini 14.

So to be clear, I think most of our restrictions in Canada are about appeasing the anti gun hand wringers and are wholly ineffective at protecting anyone. As you said, the law abiding by definition don't need the restrictions. Current restrictions are for the most part just an onerous burden on the law abiding.

That's just my perspective.

[hogie]

I'm OK with license system and having to take safety course. After that no classification system. I should be able to shoot restricted anywhere that is safe to do so.

Biggest change should be I'm not a criminal if I make a paper crimes. Forget registration certificate and I'm looking at a criminal record. How safe storage gets interpreted, locked house that gets broken into, gun stolen and owner facing charges.

Need to change laws to NOT make minor offences a criminal record if you are a law abiding citizen.

[Brucez]

I saw so many AK47 recently when something happened.

I feel the current law is only on paper.