Canadian Gun Law

[Salavee]

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 thinking we had better have all the loonies in permanent lock-up before we allow AK's and AR's and such, with the large cap mags, on every gun shop counter. Nobody, anywhere, would feel any safer, that's for sure.
It's bad enough out there as it is. To appease the few who like to play with those things, just imagine what would cut loose if those loonies had open access to them. Not all firearm restriction laws are negative, but I would like to see much more severe Loonie control. After all, it's because of them that we have these restrictions in the first place.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Salavee

I'm thinking we had better have all the loonies in permanent lock-up before we allow AK's and AR's and such, with the large cap mags, on every gun shop counter. Nobody, anywhere, would feel any safer, that's for sure.
It's bad enough out there as it is. To appease the few who like to play with those things, just imagine what would cut loose if those loonies had open access to them. Not all firearm restriction laws are negative, but I would like to see much more severe Loonie control. After all, it's because of them that we have these restrictions in the first place.

Define "large capacity" magazine.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Define "large capacity" magazine.

That would be like trying to describe the taste of salt but I'm thinking 20 -40 rounds is a bit "overkill". Lets try Five.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Salavee

That would be like trying to describe the taste of salt but I'm thinking 20 -40 rounds is a bit "overkill". Lets try Five.

20 rounds is a standard capacity magazine. That is what they were first designed to contain.

What does magazine capacity have to do with safety?

You can already legally have 10 round mags in Canada. I haven't heard of these causing problems. Why would you recommend we decrease that to 5? Do you own an AR-15?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Salavee

I'm thinking we had better have all the loonies in permanent lock-up before we allow AK's and AR's and such, with the large cap mags, on every gun shop counter. Nobody, anywhere, would feel any safer, that's for sure.
It's bad enough out there as it is. To appease the few who like to play with those things, just imagine what would cut loose if those loonies had open access to them. Not all firearm restriction laws are negative, but I would like to see much more severe Loonie control. After all, it's because of them that we have these restrictions in the first place.

Given the availability of LAR magazines for the AR platform, I don't see a huge difference in allowing 20 or 30 round magazines. It only takes a few seconds to change magazines, and in many cases, only a rivet that is easily removed, limits the magazine capacity. As for the loonies being the reason for our firearms laws, the AR platform is restricted, yet there were no Canadian shooting sprees where the AR was the firearm of choice. The mini 14 is not restricted, yet it was the firearm used in the incident that resulted in most of our firearms laws. As far as the licensing system goes, some people were given a PAL without having any training, or having to pass any test, so that makes the PAL pretty much meaningless. Then we have cases where people that are prohibited from owning firearms , are committing armed robbery, so obviously our firearms laws are not protecting us. Then we have restricted and prohibited firearms and magazines being stolen from police vehicles, or being left on ferries by police officers, so only allowing police to have firearms is no guarantee of keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals. Our firearms laws and classification system is a mess, and given that much of it is based on appearance and emotion, rather than common sense, it is no surprise. The sad part, is that with the current government in charge handing the authority back to the RCMP and a committee of people with no clue about firearms, things will only get worse in the future.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Given the availability of LAR magazines for the AR platform, I don't see a huge difference in allowing 20 or 30 round magazines. It only takes a few seconds to change magazines, and in many cases, only a rivet that is easily removed, limits the magazine capacity. As for the loonies being the reason for our firearms laws, the AR platform is restricted, yet there were no Canadian shooting sprees where the AR was the firearm of choice. The mini 14 is not restricted, yet it was the firearm used in the incident that resulted in most of our firearms laws. As far as the licensing system goes, some people were given a PAL without having any training, or having to pass any test, so that makes the PAL pretty much meaningless. Then we have cases where people that are prohibited from owning firearms , are committing armed robbery, so obviously our firearms laws are not protecting us. Then we have restricted and prohibited firearms and magazines being stolen from police vehicles, or being left on ferries by police officers, so only allowing police to have firearms is no guarantee of keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals. Our firearms laws and classification system is a mess, and given that much of it is based on appearance and emotion, rather than common sense, it is no surprise. The sad part, is that with the current government in charge handing the authority back to the RCMP and a committee of people with no clue about firearms, things will only get worse in the future.

Im not expecting a reply from Salavee. Magazine capacity restrictions may be the most ridiculous part of Canadian gun laws.

What makes a 10 rd Magpul mag prohibited, whilst an LAR mag is perfectly fine? Pathetic.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by Newview01

20 rounds is a standard capacity magazine. That is what they were first designed to contain.

What does magazine capacity have to do with safety?

You can already legally have 10 round mags in Canada. I haven't heard of these causing problems. Why would you recommend we decrease that to 5? Do you own an AR-15?

How they were designed by the manufacturer is irrelevant. If they were designed to operate with a 200 rnd belt, I'm sure there would still be those that think they really need one. That alone would not make them unsafe, but ...

.. restrictions are in place for good reason. For eg, you can buy any vehicle you want, at any time and there are many vehicles available that are designed to operate to 200 + mph. However, there are restrictions in place that govern how fast they can be driven it and even which side of the road they can be driven on. Get rid of those restrictions and enjoy your daily drive. Be sure, there are those out there who would make it rather uncomfortable for the majority who share that same public road space.
That said, no, I don't own one, but I have shot them and found them to be a lot of fun. .. and I didn't have an issue re-loading a ten round magazine either. That said, for me, I'll go with the 10 rnd capacity only because it's within my comfort zone, barely.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Salavee

How they were designed by the manufacturer is irrelevant. If they were designed to operate with a 200 rnd belt, I'm sure there would still be those that think they really need one. That alone would not make them unsafe, but ...

.. restrictions are in place for good reason. For eg, you can buy any vehicle you want, at any time and there are many vehicles available that are designed to operate to 200 + mph. However, there are restrictions in place that govern how fast they can be driven it and even which side of the road they can be driven on. Get rid of those restrictions and enjoy your daily drive. Be sure, there are those out there who would make it rather uncomfortable for the majority who share that same public road space.
That said, no, I don't own one, but I have shot them and found them to be a lot of fun. .. and I didn't have an issue re-loading a ten round magazine either. That said, for me, I'll go with the 10 rnd capacity only because it's within my comfort zone, barely.

Your example of automobiles being able to reach speeds of 200mph, actually contradicts your argument. Requiring a governor limiting the speed would be the same as a magazine limit. Not requiring a governor, and expecting people to drive responsibly, is the equivalent of having no magazine limit, and expecting people to shoot responsibly.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Salavee

How they were designed by the manufacturer is irrelevant. If they were designed to operate with a 200 rnd belt, I'm sure there would still be those that think they really need one. That alone would not make them unsafe, but ...

.. restrictions are in place for good reason. For eg, you can buy any vehicle you want, at any time and there are many vehicles available that are designed to operate to 200 + mph. However, there are restrictions in place that govern how fast they can be driven it and even which side of the road they can be driven on. Get rid of those restrictions and enjoy your daily drive. Be sure, there are those out there who would make it rather uncomfortable for the majority who share that same public road space.
That said, no, I don't own one, but I have shot them and found them to be a lot of fun. .. and I didn't have an issue re-loading a ten round magazine either. That said, for me, I'll go with the 10 rnd capacity only because it's within my comfort zone, barely.

The same person that can barely control a 79 ToyotaCorolla is allowed to buy a Charger Hellcat.

And because a 10 rd magazine is in your comfort zone does that mean I should be restricted to that as well? Again, what do magazine restrictions do for public safety?

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Your example of automobiles being able to reach speeds of 200mph, actually contradicts your argument. Requiring a governor limiting the speed would be the same as a magazine limit. Not requiring a governor, and expecting people to drive responsibly, is the equivalent of having no magazine limit, and expecting people to shoot responsibly.

It's not the responsible firearms users that the restrictions are aimed at .. it's all the unqualified, uncontrollable idiots at large that have them that are the problem. I'm definitely not in favor of firearm restrictions any more than others, so don't read me wrong. For those who would like to see unlimited, unrestricted availability of any and all types of firearms at this point in time, just look around and raise your hands. We can't even control handguns and we certainly can't control those who use them irresponsibly. As for nightmare scenarios , myself , and a lot of others can do without them.
As for your response Elk, I wasn't referring to, nor did I mention, a law requiring governors on autos.. It was speed limits I had in mind.. self governed, so to speak. No need for them either, I take it..

[Hillbilly 12]

Originally Posted by Salavee

It's not the responsible firearms users that the restrictions are aimed at .. it's all the unqualified, uncontrollable idiots at large that have them that are the problem. I'm definitely not in favor of firearm restrictions any more than others, so don't read me wrong. For those who would like to see unlimited, unrestricted availability of any and all types of firearms at this point in time, just look around and raise your hands. We can't even control handguns and we certainly can't control those who use them irresponsibly. As for nightmare scenarios , myself , and a lot of others can do without them.
As for your response Elk, I wasn't referring to, nor did I mention, a law requiring governors on autos.. It was speed limits I had in mind.. self governed, so to speak. No need for them either, I take it..

We can't control handguns because we don't control criminals because we have no justice system, and it's a criminals free for all. Mag restrictions are in place for law abiding citizens. It's illegal to have a handgun selling drugs and crap but it still happens, I don't think criminals abide by mag restrictions.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Salavee

It's not the responsible firearms users that the restrictions are aimed at .. it's all the unqualified, uncontrollable idiots at large that have them that are the problem. I'm definitely not in favor of firearm restrictions any more than others, so don't read me wrong. For those who would like to see unlimited, unrestricted availability of any and all types of firearms at this point in time, just look around and raise your hands. We can't even control handguns and we certainly can't control those who use them irresponsibly. As for nightmare scenarios , myself , and a lot of others can do without them.
As for your response Elk, I wasn't referring to, nor did I mention, a law requiring governors on autos.. It was speed limits I had in mind.. self governed, so to speak. No need for them either, I take it..

Speed limits are not the same as a magazine limit. A speed limit does not physically limit the speed that an automobile can go, the way that a legal magazine physically limits the amount of rounds that it will hold. The same is true for impaired driving, we have a legal limit but there is nothing to physically prevent a person from driving while impaired. The equivalent of a speed limit, would be mandating that people don't load more than five rounds into a magazine that will physically hold 30 rounds. In both cases, the equipment could be used to violate the regulation, and it is up to the operator to obey the regulations.As for unqualified , uncontrolled idiots, a 16 year old can get behind the wheel of a 700hp vehicle capable of over 200mph . And an 18 or 19 year old can legally purchase alcohol, and only the operator can prevent that teenager from driving while impaired. Once again, the responsibility is placed on the operator to obey the regulations. As for nightmarish scenarios, they happen much more often as a result of motor vehicles than they do as a result of firearms. How many people are killed every year because of impaired drivers, or incompetent drivers , driving vehicles that they can't handle? We could greatly reduce these deaths by banning alcohol, and mandating governors, or horsepower limits on vehicles, but the government chooses not to do that.

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by Hillbilly 12

We can't control handguns because we don't control criminals because we have no justice system, and it's a criminals free for all.

Exactly ! ... so why would you want all these criminals out there to have more access to full auto AR's, Ak's etc. ?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Salavee

Exactly ! ... so why would you want all these criminals out there to have more access to full auto AR's, Ak's etc. ?

The same argument can be made with impaired driving, if we eliminate alcohol, we prevent drunk driving.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Salavee

Exactly ! ... so why would you want all these criminals out there to have more access to full auto AR's, Ak's etc. ?

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.

[Hillbilly 12]

Originally Posted by Salavee

Exactly ! ... so why would you want all these criminals out there to have more access to full auto AR's, Ak's etc. ?

Well maybe it's because I'm not a criminal first off, and Because I'm one of the ones who believe drug dealers, murders, rapists, sex offenders, and thieves ( criminals) should be executed.

We have very strict handgun laws in Canada right?, so why are handguns such a problem with crime??

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Speed limits are not the same as a magazine limit. A speed limit does not physically limit the speed that an automobile can go, the way that a legal magazine physically limits the amount of rounds that it will hold. The same is true for impaired driving, we have a legal limit but there is nothing to physically prevent a person from driving while impaired. The equivalent of a speed limit, would be mandating that people don't load more than five rounds into a magazine that will physically hold 30 rounds. In both cases, the equipment could be used to violate the regulation, and it is up to the operator to obey the regulations.As for unqualified , uncontrolled idiots, a 16 year old can get behind the wheel of a 700hp vehicle capable of over 200mph . And an 18 or 19 year old can legally purchase alcohol, and only the operator can prevent that teenager from driving while impaired. Once again, the responsibility is placed on the operator to obey the regulations. As for nightmarish scenarios, they happen much more often as a result of motor vehicles than they do as a result of firearms. How many people are killed every year because of impaired drivers, or incompetent drivers , driving vehicles that they can't handle? We could greatly reduce these deaths by banning alcohol, and mandating governors, or horsepower limits on vehicles, but the government chooses not to do that.

Well, why is it that you comply with a three round shotgun mag limit when you hunt waterfowl? Because it's practical , or because it's the law ?
After all, it is a restriction. Wouldn't it be more fun with a 10 rnd extension tube?

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Salavee

Well, why is it that you comply with a three round shotgun mag limit when you hunt waterfowl? Because it's practical , or because it's the law ?
After all, it is a restriction. Wouldn't it be more fun with a 10 rnd extension tube?

How would a 10 rd tube affect the hunt? Why is it restricted to 3?

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by Newview01

How would a 10 rd tube affect the hunt? Why is it restricted to 3?

3 round shotgun limit had more too do with hunting than anything else, to try and curtail unnecessary wounding and loss of birds .
Some States have no mag limits on geese these days because of the problem of snow geese on crops.
Cat

[RBI]

Originally Posted by Hillbilly 12

We can't control handguns because we don't control criminals because we have no justice system, and it's a criminals free for all. Mag restrictions are in place for law abiding citizens. It's illegal to have a handgun selling drugs and crap but it still happens, I don't think criminals abide by mag restrictions.

" We can't control handguns, because we don't control criminals, because we have no justice system ."

BULLSEYE

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Salavee

Well, why is it that you comply with a three round shotgun mag limit when you hunt waterfowl? Because it's practical , or because it's the law ?
After all, it is a restriction. Wouldn't it be more fun with a 10 rnd extension tube?

That is a regulation put in place to conserve our waterfowl, it has nothing to do with public safety. And actually, it is not a mag limit of three, it is a total capacity of three rounds in the firearm, which includes a round in the chamber. And this isn't even part of the Firearms Act, it is part of the Migratory Birds Convention. And some provinces also apply this for all game birds in their Wildlife Act.

[Salavee]

I'm well aware of the two round shotgun mag capacity and the Snow Goose mag capacity. Misstated.. sorry. It's still a restriction that we willingly comply with as we see it as a reasonable regardless of by whom and why it was put in place.

If we didn't think so and no severe (to us) penalties were imposed for infractions.. then what ?

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by Newview01

How would a 10 rd tube affect the hunt? Why is it restricted to 3?

So a lot of innocent Ducks don't get hurt.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Salavee

I'm well aware of the two round shotgun mag capacity and the Snow Goose mag capacity. Misstated.. sorry. It's still a restriction that we willingly comply with as we see it as a reasonable regardless of by whom and why it was put in place.

If we didn't think so and no severe (to us) penalties were imposed for infractions.. then what ?

There would be no effect to public safety, which is the basis of our firearms regulations. In fact , many of us have removed the plug from our shotguns, and have loaded more than three rounds into the firearm, when we weren't hunting game birds, and there were no negative results. The fact is that many of our firearms regulations do not protect our society, they are simply regulations made to appease people, and to make it appear that the government was protecting us.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Salavee

I'm well aware of the two round shotgun mag capacity and the Snow Goose mag capacity. Misstated.. sorry. It's still a restriction that we willingly comply with as we see it as a reasonable regardless of by whom and why it was put in place.

If we didn't think so and no severe (to us) penalties were imposed for infractions.. then what ?

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

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

There would be no effect to public safety, which is the basis of our firearms regulations. In fact , many of us have removed the plug from our shotguns, and have loaded more than three rounds into the firearm, when we weren't hunting game birds, and there were no negative results. The fact is that many of our firearms regulations do not protect our society, they are simply regulations made to appease people, and to make it appear that the government was protecting us.

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.?

[Hat in the Cat]

What I find sad is if you take out the emotional crimes (murder suicide, bully revenge, or angry worker) most gun crime all comes back to a certain common place... drugs. Whether it is the gangs fighting for power, controlling turf or a junkie looking for money through robbery a vast majority of gun crime is created by the drug world not the lawful gun owners in this country but here we are paying the price because no government wants to admit they cant actually deal with the real problem.

When a fatal DUI makes the news nobody fears that their favourite alcohol or vehicle is about to be confiscated yet when a shooting occurs we all sit around hoping that no more ridiculous laws and bans are coming.

[wildbill]

Between 2007 and 2014, 164000 people were murdered in Mexico,there is one military run gun store, and their cartels ain’t getting their guns there. My point being, criminals will get guns, regardless of whether handguns are legal or not. B.C. for example, criminals have been trading B.C. Bud for cocaine and guns from the states for decades, our laws can’t prevent that, and really, who cares if criminals are killing each other, I know I sure don’t, you dance by the fire sometimes you get burnt. Scrutinizing the use handguns has no value, you can easily turn nonrestricted to restricted, criminals are usually the only ones hackin barrels off, or taking pins out, so let’s regulate the law abiding citizens. Sure, I get making sure one is competent before getting a pal, but the rest is hogwash. Like really, someone with “religious exemption” can go into a gun store wearing a mask and have no picture on their rpal and buy a handgun, but hey they better scrutinize the heck out of you and me, because according to the law we must be the real problem!

[Newview01]

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.?

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

[Salavee]

Originally Posted by Hat in the Cat

What I find sad is if you take out the emotional crimes (murder suicide, bully revenge, or angry worker) most gun crime all comes back to a certain common place... drugs. Whether it is the gangs fighting for power, controlling turf or a junkie looking for money through robbery a vast majority of gun crime is created by the drug world not the lawful gun owners in this country but here we are paying the price because no government wants to admit they cant actually deal with the real problem.

When a fatal DUI makes the news nobody fears that their favourite alcohol or vehicle is about to be confiscated yet when a shooting occurs we all sit around hoping that no more ridiculous laws and bans are coming.

Alcohol appears to be here to stay. Maybe not the same with firearms. Limits are imposed by law on blood alcohol content allowable while driving in every jurisdiction in NA. That law too is lacking proper enforcement, but without that law, can you imagine the road carnage?
Some wanted marijuana legalized. Now they have it. We'll soon see the benefit to society of that one on the Hiways and elsewhere as well. What a few want isn't always the best for society as a whole. That's my point.