Gun Control

techrtr
Übergod
Posts: 1591
Joined: Jul 5th, 2005, 7:47 am

Re: Order in council gun ban

Post by techrtr »

Pete Podoski wrote:
fluffy wrote:
For me the name “assault rifle” implies a design intended for military use.


Armalite Rifles including the AR-15 were not designed for military use.

Neither was the 416 Weatherby moose hunting rifle.

.303 Lee Enfield was designed for military use, not on the list.

Try again.


You're funny. Comparing a .303 Lee Enfield to a modern military assault rifle or derivatives is assinine.
Gixxer
Lord of the Board
Posts: 4856
Joined: Jul 26th, 2007, 8:24 am

Re: Order in council gun ban

Post by Gixxer »

I have a few friends that own SKS guns. Are these considered AR's?
User avatar
fluffy
Admiral HMS Castanet
Posts: 25832
Joined: Jun 1st, 2006, 5:42 pm

Re: Order in council gun ban

Post by fluffy »

Pete Podoski wrote:Armalite Rifles including the AR-15 were not designed for military use.
.

The M16 is a version of the AR15. I think AR15’s presence on the list has more to do with its popularity outside of hunting. Rapid fire capabilities and high magazine capacity aren’t really a must for hunting.

Try again.


Why? It looks like this is a done deal.
A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.
- William James
User avatar
honeymuffins
Fledgling
Posts: 106
Joined: Jul 28th, 2016, 6:05 pm

Re: Order in council gun ban

Post by honeymuffins »

*removed*
Last edited by ferri on May 1st, 2020, 11:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Baiting
User avatar
Merry
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 14156
Joined: Nov 2nd, 2008, 11:41 am

Re: Order in council gun ban

Post by Merry »

fluffy wrote:these are not the type of weapons used for hunting.

If that's true, then I don't have a problem with it. But if Pete's right, and rifles used regularly by many hunters are also included, then I think that, given the fact that most gun crime is done using illegal weapons, the negatives outweigh the positives.

There is a whole industry in Canada built around hunting, and a law that impacts hunting is bound to have a negative impact on those whose livelihoods depend on it. Retail stores that sell guns, ammo, and other hunting equipment such as clothing, animal call sounds, etc. will all lose revenue. Hunting lodges, hunting guides, campgrounds that make a lot of off season revenue from hunters, etc. would also all be negatively impacted. And a time when such places are already hurting due to this Pandemic, does not seem to be a good time for the Government to inflict even more financial pain.

Add to that the loss of revenue to Conservation efforts in Canada, and it's easy to see an awful lot of negatives to imposing restrictions that will negatively impact hunting.

fluffy wrote: From what I’ve read there will be a two year amnesty period for current owners to deal with the issue themselves.

What does that mean? It sounds to me as though the Government is telling such folks that something they bought legally, and paid a lot of money for, is now going to become something they will no longer be able to either use or sell. And that they have two years to hand it in to authorities to be destroyed.

How is that fair?

If the Government wants those folks to hand in their legally bought possessions, that have never been used inappropriately, then the Government should compensate them for their financial loss.

fluffy wrote:It looks to me like the main focus here isn’t run-of-the-mill crime, but mass shootings, so you have to consider how restricting availability of assault weapons might affect that phenomenon.

If removing military style assault weapons is the goal, then I don't have a problem with that. BUT if rifles commonly used by hunters are included, then I think the negatives outweigh the positives. Because most mass shootings are NOT committed using legally obtained hunting rifles.

fluffy wrote:The effect these new laws will have on the overall crime rate remains to be seen, but I think it’s hard to deny that this is a step in the right direction.

Because most gun crimes are committed using illegally obtained weapons, I doubt this new law will have much effect on the overall crime rate. And, as it will most definitely have an effect on the livelihoods of all those working in industries related to hunting, it's hard to see it as a "step in the right direction".
"In a world swathed in political correctness, the voting booth remains the final sanctuary where the people are free to speak" - Clifford Orwin
User avatar
Pete Podoski
Grand Pooh-bah
Posts: 2054
Joined: Jul 16th, 2018, 9:13 am

Re: Order in council gun ban

Post by Pete Podoski »

techrtr wrote:
tomloudon wrote:This liberal government is right out to lunch thinking these new gun bans will stop gun crime. Lets go one step further, all vehicles will have to have interlock devices installed to stop drunk driving and drug impaired driving.


It can't hurt.


Neither can putting a bandaid on your forehead when you're having a heart attack, but it won't make any difference or stop the heart attack.
Be sure to read Justin Trudeau's new autobiography: Sunny Day Sketches of a Small Mind
Gilchy
Grand Pooh-bah
Posts: 2635
Joined: Nov 19th, 2010, 6:51 am

Re: Order in council gun ban

Post by Gilchy »

.300 WSM is powerful enough to take down an Alaskan Moose or Buffalo, muzzle energy is 4794 J. Most .308s are under 4000J. .378 Weatherby Magnums adn .458 Winchester Mag (elephant guns) are under 7000J.

You have to get into the .50 BMG (tank-killer) to get well over 10,000J. These are not hunting rifles.

Unless I'm getting wrong info, the energy cap is far and above any hunting rifle.
techrtr
Übergod
Posts: 1591
Joined: Jul 5th, 2005, 7:47 am

Re: Order in council gun ban

Post by techrtr »

Neither can putting a bandaid on your forehead when you're having a heart attack, but it won't make any difference or stop the heart attack.


Well, we shall see won't we? They're banned, and if we don't see anymore mass murders in Canada, our government will be proven right. Hunters still have a lot of firearms to choose from. Gun enthusiasts who feel the need to own a military rifle are sol. Too bad, so sad. There really only has to be one hunting rifle on the market in the world to satisfy the need of hunters.
FairlyKnew
Fledgling
Posts: 154
Joined: Sep 15th, 2017, 12:28 pm

Re: Order in council gun ban

Post by FairlyKnew »

techrtr wrote:
Neither can putting a bandaid on your forehead when you're having a heart attack, but it won't make any difference or stop the heart attack.


Well, we shall see won't we? They're banned, and if we don't see anymore mass murders in Canada, our government will be proven right. Hunters still have a lot of firearms to choose from. Gun enthusiasts who feel the need to own a military rifle are sol. Too bad, so sad. There really only has to be one hunting rifle on the market in the world to satisfy the need of hunters.



Why does the ban not apply to indigenous? Apparently it has to do with treaty rights but then there will still be legal assault weapons on reserves. If the Liberals are not getting rid of all assault weapons, what is the point of all this?
User avatar
Pete Podoski
Grand Pooh-bah
Posts: 2054
Joined: Jul 16th, 2018, 9:13 am

Re: Order in council gun ban

Post by Pete Podoski »

FairlyKnew wrote:Why does the ban not apply to indigenous? Apparently it has to do with treaty rights but then there will still be legal assault weapons on reserves. If the Liberals are not getting rid of all assault weapons, what is the point of all this?


Trudeau simply is hiding from a constitutional challenge from First Nations on his undemocratic confiscation of property.
Be sure to read Justin Trudeau's new autobiography: Sunny Day Sketches of a Small Mind
jimmy4321
Guru
Posts: 6844
Joined: Jun 6th, 2010, 5:40 pm

Re: Order in council gun ban

Post by jimmy4321 »

Yeah i didn't read into the entire thread, sounds like this is alot about nothing. Won't effect Canadian hunters
User avatar
Merry
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 14156
Joined: Nov 2nd, 2008, 11:41 am

Re: Order in council gun ban

Post by Merry »

techrtr wrote:Well, we shall see won't we? They're banned, and if we don't see anymore mass murders in Canada, our government will be proven right. Hunters still have a lot of firearms to choose from. Gun enthusiasts who feel the need to own a military rifle are sol. Too bad, so sad. There really only has to be one hunting rifle on the market in the world to satisfy the need of hunters.

Sadly, I think you're deluding yourself if you think this ban is going to eliminate all future mass murders in Canada.

That said, I see no reason for ordinary people to own military style assault weapons, and am not opposed to banning them. But I do think that, as they paid a lot of money for what was a perfectly legal possession, that they should be compensated for their loss. Besides which, providing compensation will encourage folks to voluntarily hand them in.

But that said, if Pete's right, and this new law is worded in such a way that the ban will extend to rifles commonly used to hunt large game, then I think that is overreach because, as I've already pointed out, the negatives will outweigh any hoped for benefit (that may never materialize).

Even Canada's police chiefs have gone on record as saying that gun crime will not go down much unless we reduce gun smuggling from the States.
"In a world swathed in political correctness, the voting booth remains the final sanctuary where the people are free to speak" - Clifford Orwin
hobbyguy
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 14763
Joined: Jan 20th, 2011, 8:10 pm

Re: Order in council gun ban

Post by hobbyguy »

Pete Podoski wrote:Any firearm over 10,000 joules.

That includes any of the larger magnum hunting rifles, Weatherbys, Sakos, Brownings, Winchesters - any brand.


Just out of curiosity, I looked up the largest caliber hunting rifle I could ever see as be useful in Canada. .375 Magnum, and the energy listed is 5,915 joules.

Ya, if you go for a 50 calibre sniper round you will be over the 10,000. But nobody needs that over kill, and I have never seen anyone use a 50 for hunting. There is no legitimate sporting use for a 50.

But I am not surprised to hyperbole about the changes from a few. The few do not have the right to put the many at risk. Just as even though I have explosives training, I am not allowed to own explosives - despite the fact that there are more legitimate uses for explosives in civil society than there are for a 50 cal.
The middle path - everything in moderation, and everything in its time and order.
User avatar
Pete Podoski
Grand Pooh-bah
Posts: 2054
Joined: Jul 16th, 2018, 9:13 am

Re: Order in council gun ban

Post by Pete Podoski »

jimmy4321 wrote:Yeah i didn't read into the entire thread, sounds like this is alot about nothing. Won't effect Canadian hunters


90% of the firearms on the list are used for hunting.
Be sure to read Justin Trudeau's new autobiography: Sunny Day Sketches of a Small Mind
User avatar
Merry
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 14156
Joined: Nov 2nd, 2008, 11:41 am

Re: Order in council gun ban

Post by Merry »

FairlyKnew wrote:Why does the ban not apply to indigenous? Apparently it has to do with treaty rights but then there will still be legal assault weapons on reserves. If the Liberals are not getting rid of all assault weapons, what is the point of all this?

Good point; particularly as the only armed confrontations with police that I'm aware of, involved indigenous people.
"In a world swathed in political correctness, the voting booth remains the final sanctuary where the people are free to speak" - Clifford Orwin

Return to “Canada”