I'm stumped ...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: JHZR2

Id personally compromise magazine capacity for nationwide shall issue to carry and license (because some level of competency is probably a good thing) reciprocity. But that would be a compromise... which isn't actually in anime eyes' manifesto.



You've pretty much described our system, which is Federally managed. We have competency regulation (License + training) and 5rd limits on anything semi, save rimfire.


Keep in mind (since I'll probably get flamed on that quoted point in particular), that I'm already limited. So it would be less of a loss to me. 15 rounds doesn't affect most handguns. But what i define below isn't good enough so aim sure they'll limit us to 10 at some point. I resent that.

But aren't there severe limitations in Canada to buy any SA rifle or handgun?

I need to get rid of some number of "evil features" on an AR, but after a one time purchase permit, I can buy all the ARs I want in as short a time as could be afforded.

Handguns I need to limit to one per month, an extra background check to get the permits, and get a permit per gun, only good for 90-180 days. But I can keep doing that indefinitely. Is that the case in Canada?
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: JHZR2

Id personally compromise magazine capacity for nationwide shall issue to carry and license (because some level of competency is probably a good thing) reciprocity. But that would be a compromise... which isn't actually in anime eyes' manifesto.



You've pretty much described our system, which is Federally managed. We have competency regulation (License + training) and 5rd limits on anything semi, save rimfire.


Keep in mind (since I'll probably get flamed on that point in particular), that I'm already limited. So it would be less of a loss to me.

But aren't there severe limitations to buy any SA rifle or handgun?

I need to get rid of some number of "evil features" on an AR, but after a one time purchase permit, I can buy all the ARs I want in as short a time as could be afforded.

Handguns I need to limit to one per month, an extra background check to get the permits, and get a permit per gun, only good for 90-180 days. But I can keep doing that indefinitely. Is that the case in Canada?




The Canadian system regarding rifles and shotguns that are non-restricted is basically:
1. If it is a bolt action, capacity is unlimited
2. If it is a rimfire, capacity is unlimited
3. If it is a centrefire semi, capacity is limited to 5 save for pistol calibres, which are limited to 10
4. There are no buying restrictions on anything non-restricted. I can go buy a Robinson XCR in .308 or .223 semi-auto right now, would only take as long as required to ring it through the cash after showing my license.

Regarding anything classified as restricted which includes all handguns and some rifles:
1. You require your Restricted permit
2. All Restricted guns are registered at time of purchase, you need permission from the CFA for procurement and you need to be registered at a range
3. All Restricted firearms are only allowed to be discharged at a range
4. Capacity limits are the same as for non-restricted


What defines a gun as restricted primarily comes down to:
-Barrel length
-Handgun
-Appearance: We have quite a few semi's that are restricted or even prohibited just based on their appearance or perceived affiliation with Military use, like the Barrett M82A1 and M107.
 
To me it boils down to the literal fact that, criminals, by definition, do not obey the law. They might use cheap saturday night specials or they might use belt fed AR15s. In either case, they aren't checking their local laws to see if their weapons are in compliance. They have a goal in mind and a driven enough criminal will find a way, be it a straw purchase of a gun through a girlfriend, black market, or [censored] they can just buy a bunch of tannerite and rent a uhaul truck..

So then gun control, as a law, by definition, really only impacts those who are willing to comply. I don't know the statistics but I'd say that a good 99.9% of people who comply with laws also tend to not be criminals.

I've never seen the issue as one about stopping crime or saving the innocent. When you boil it down, it's just asking innocent law abiding people to willingly accept a penalty for something they never did in the first place.
 
Originally Posted By: Reddy45
To me it boils down to the literal fact that, criminals, by definition, do not obey the law. They might use cheap saturday night specials or they might use belt fed AR15s. In either case, they aren't checking their local laws to see if their weapons are in compliance. They have a goal in mind and a driven enough criminal will find a way, be it a straw purchase of a gun through a girlfriend, black market, or [censored] they can just buy a bunch of tannerite and rent a uhaul truck..

So then gun control, as a law, by definition, really only impacts those who are willing to comply. I don't know the statistics but I'd say that a good 99.9% of people who comply with laws also tend to not be criminals.

I've never seen the issue as one about stopping crime or saving the innocent. When you boil it down, it's just asking innocent law abiding people to willingly accept a penalty for something they never did in the first place.


If they banned homelessness, only outlaws would be homeless.

Basically the criminals ruin it for everyone else. Always have.
 
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
Originally Posted By: grampi

The problem with banning ANY type of gun is that it would just be a stepping stone for those who want to ban all guns. The anti-gun people are not going to be happy banning only AR 15s. The next movement would be to ban all semi automatic guns...


I think that's a common argument, but really very weak. Remember, they DID ban the AR-15 on the federal level. The ban expired after 10 years. I don't seem to recall any attempted ban on semi automatics at the federal level although a few states still have an AR-15 ban and also a magazine capacity max of 10 rounds.

You've got to come up with a better argument.


Can observe exactly that in Oz...for e.g. the argument that the lever action shotgun was a "loophole" that needed to be closed, 20 years after the laws that "stopped 17 mass shootings in Australia". (That's their statistics...)

People doing the banning have no technical understanding, they just know what they don't like next, then focus on that.

Edit the cake analogy is perfect...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: HemiHawk
The thing is... this particular "tool" has a VERY distinct purpose. I agree that more deaths happen each year from smoking...and from auto accidents and the like. But there exists a "tool" that has a singular purpose... Thats kind of the issue as I see it.

Now, you can interpret that purpose a couple ways sure... defense (as I do), "sport" (which is arguable since that sport is practicing for its real intended use) and killing. Whether that's animals or people. But people acting like everything else you can kill people with is equal is funny at best, willfully ignorant at worst. Yes, I can take one person out with a 2x4. Not 30.


You can steal a truck, and kill at least 84. When will those evil trucks be banned???
 
Originally Posted By: 02SE
Originally Posted By: HemiHawk
The thing is... this particular "tool" has a VERY distinct purpose. I agree that more deaths happen each year from smoking...and from auto accidents and the like. But there exists a "tool" that has a singular purpose... Thats kind of the issue as I see it.

Now, you can interpret that purpose a couple ways sure... defense (as I do), "sport" (which is arguable since that sport is practicing for its real intended use) and killing. Whether that's animals or people. But people acting like everything else you can kill people with is equal is funny at best, willfully ignorant at worst. Yes, I can take one person out with a 2x4. Not 30.


You can steal a truck, and kill at least 84. When will those evil trucks be banned???


When someone actually kills 84.
 
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
Originally Posted By: 02SE
Originally Posted By: HemiHawk
The thing is... this particular "tool" has a VERY distinct purpose. I agree that more deaths happen each year from smoking...and from auto accidents and the like. But there exists a "tool" that has a singular purpose... Thats kind of the issue as I see it.

Now, you can interpret that purpose a couple ways sure... defense (as I do), "sport" (which is arguable since that sport is practicing for its real intended use) and killing. Whether that's animals or people. But people acting like everything else you can kill people with is equal is funny at best, willfully ignorant at worst. Yes, I can take one person out with a 2x4. Not 30.


You can steal a truck, and kill at least 84. When will those evil trucks be banned???


When someone actually kills 84.


Not much on World events, I see. I direct your attention to Nice, France, in the summer of 2016...

Of course that's not even mentioning the hundreds of others who were wounded. Some with life-long debilitating injuries...

Or 168 people who were killed, and hundreds more injured in this Country because an evil truck was readily available..
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: JHZR2

Id personally compromise magazine capacity for nationwide shall issue to carry and license (because some level of competency is probably a good thing) reciprocity. But that would be a compromise... which isn't actually in anime eyes' manifesto.



You've pretty much described our system, which is Federally managed. We have competency regulation (License + training) and 5rd limits on anything semi, save rimfire.


Keep in mind (since I'll probably get flamed on that quoted point in particular), that I'm already limited. So it would be less of a loss to me. 15 rounds doesn't affect most handguns. But what i define below isn't good enough so aim sure they'll limit us to 10 at some point. I resent that.

But aren't there severe limitations in Canada to buy any SA rifle or handgun?

I need to get rid of some number of "evil features" on an AR, but after a one time purchase permit, I can buy all the ARs I want in as short a time as could be afforded.

Handguns I need to limit to one per month, an extra background check to get the permits, and get a permit per gun, only good for 90-180 days. But I can keep doing that indefinitely. Is that the case in Canada?


You've already been punked. You're out of the conversation.
 
Originally Posted By: 02SE
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
Originally Posted By: 02SE
Originally Posted By: HemiHawk
The thing is... this particular "tool" has a VERY distinct purpose. I agree that more deaths happen each year from smoking...and from auto accidents and the like. But there exists a "tool" that has a singular purpose... Thats kind of the issue as I see it.

Now, you can interpret that purpose a couple ways sure... defense (as I do), "sport" (which is arguable since that sport is practicing for its real intended use) and killing. Whether that's animals or people. But people acting like everything else you can kill people with is equal is funny at best, willfully ignorant at worst. Yes, I can take one person out with a 2x4. Not 30.


You can steal a truck, and kill at least 84. When will those evil trucks be banned???


When someone actually kills 84.


Not much on World events, I see. I direct your attention to Nice, France, in the summer of 2016...

Of course that's not even mentioning the hundreds of others who were wounded. Some with life-long debilitating injuries...

Or 168 people who were killed, and hundreds more injured in this Country because an evil truck was readily available..


Yeah, but the US ignores what goes on in other countries otherwise they would have banned guns already. No one talks about all the gun killings in Japan, because there really aren't that many.
 
Originally Posted By: HemiHawk
What exactly is the point here... If the US tomorrow somehow fully banned firearms I bet stabbings would be on the rise. Right now roughly 64% of US homicides are from a firearm. Compared to 4.5% in UK. A big difference is how many people can you take out at once with a knife? Not as many as an AR-15 they'll sell to any 18 year old.

By most measures the US has a firearm problem. Remember, land of the "free"


What is the acceptable number of victims for a murder spree? Is there some magic number where we actually talk about doing something about disturbed people before they murder *anyone* with *any* type of weapon? Or is it cool with you if other people are only killed, say, five at a time?
 
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Originally Posted By: HemiHawk
What exactly is the point here... If the US tomorrow somehow fully banned firearms I bet stabbings would be on the rise. Right now roughly 64% of US homicides are from a firearm. Compared to 4.5% in UK. A big difference is how many people can you take out at once with a knife? Not as many as an AR-15 they'll sell to any 18 year old.

By most measures the US has a firearm problem. Remember, land of the "free"


What is the acceptable number of victims for a murder spree? Is there some magic number where we actually talk about doing something about disturbed people before they murder *anyone* with *any* type of weapon? Or is it cool with you if other people are only killed, say, five at a time?


Well any lower number would be better than a higher number. Just simple math. Most of the proposed changes wouldn't have done anything about the Vegas shooter as he had no history of metal illness and he bought all those weapons legally. Probably would have slowed him down by getting rid of the bump stocks and the large capacity magazine.
 
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
Originally Posted By: 02SE


You can steal a truck, and kill at least 84. When will those evil trucks be banned???


When someone actually kills 84.


You mean, like this?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36800730

Don't forget that several hundred were injured, too...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Originally Posted By: HemiHawk
What exactly is the point here... If the US tomorrow somehow fully banned firearms I bet stabbings would be on the rise. Right now roughly 64% of US homicides are from a firearm. Compared to 4.5% in UK. A big difference is how many people can you take out at once with a knife? Not as many as an AR-15 they'll sell to any 18 year old.

By most measures the US has a firearm problem. Remember, land of the "free"


What is the acceptable number of victims for a murder spree? Is there some magic number where we actually talk about doing something about disturbed people before they murder *anyone* with *any* type of weapon? Or is it cool with you if other people are only killed, say, five at a time?


Well any lower number would be better than a higher number. Just simple math. Most of the proposed changes wouldn't have done anything about the Vegas shooter as he had no history of metal illness and he bought all those weapons legally. Probably would have slowed him down by getting rid of the bump stocks and the large capacity magazine.


I suspect the victims and their friends and families would strongly disagree that any number is "better" or that it is "just simple math." How many other shooters could have been stopped, or do we just ignore the whole thing because one might not have been?
 
Last edited:
" Of course technically AR-15s aren't assault weapons, but they're pretty darn powerful weapons "

Since when is a .223 a "darn powerful" round? Ever see a 30-06 or a .458 Winmag next to a .223?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: xxch4osxx
" Of course technically AR-15s aren't assault weapons, but they're pretty darn powerful weapons "

Since when is a .223 a "darn powerful" round? Ever see a 30-06 or a .458 Winmag next to a .223?


 
Originally Posted By: SonofJoe
.... Oh! Look what's happening over there in London. It's so terrible. terrible. ....


Well, yeah, it does look terrible. Especially those riots / fires in what, 2010 - 2011? Did y'all ban matches and lighters after that? Their only purpose is to ignite something ....

The UK seems like an odd place. I guess a stiff upper lip comes in handy when your only recourse is to just shut up and take it.
 
Originally Posted By: 4WD
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
Originally Posted By: 02SE


You can steal a truck, and kill at least 84. When will those evil trucks be banned???


When someone actually kills 84.


You mean, like this?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36800730

Don't forget that several hundred were injured, too...


And did we ever figure out if a B777 was not used as a mass murder weapon?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370



That's still murky but EgyptAir Flight 990 was pretty much a murder-suicide at least according to the NTSB although Egypt disputes it.
 
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
Originally Posted By: SlipperyPete
Originally Posted By: HemiHawk
What exactly is the point here... If the US tomorrow somehow fully banned firearms I bet stabbings would be on the rise. Right now roughly 64% of US homicides are from a firearm. Compared to 4.5% in UK. A big difference is how many people can you take out at once with a knife? Not as many as an AR-15 they'll sell to any 18 year old.

By most measures the US has a firearm problem. Remember, land of the "free"


What is the acceptable number of victims for a murder spree? Is there some magic number where we actually talk about doing something about disturbed people before they murder *anyone* with *any* type of weapon? Or is it cool with you if other people are only killed, say, five at a time?


Well any lower number would be better than a higher number. Just simple math. Most of the proposed changes wouldn't have done anything about the Vegas shooter as he had no history of metal illness and he bought all those weapons legally. Probably would have slowed him down by getting rid of the bump stocks and the large capacity magazine.


I suspect the victims and their friends and families would strongly disagree that any number is "better" or that it is "just simple math." How many other shooters could have been stopped, or do we just ignore the whole thing because one might not have been?


Zero is still a number.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

vavavroom
Show me your SAK Mods
Replies
1
Views
2K
vavavroom
fantastic
  • Locked
How Many Millennials Here On BITOG? Check-In
2 3
Replies
59
Views
2K
Astro14
A
  • Locked
Has anyone joined the Bing AI powered Chat Bot wait list? Read this! "I want to be human"
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
JohnnyJohnson
A
Aftermath of a Cardiac Ablation Monday = Success!
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
alarmguy
Hillbilly Deluxe
What has happened to customer service?
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
4K
Aredeeem
Back
Top