Canada Ban

[DUNKS]

As from today Canada has banned all assault type weapons. It is illegal to buy sell trade or gift these weapons. All have to be gone within a two year period. Compensations will be made. The PM said such weapons were designed only to kill the maxim amount of people in the shortest time and there was no place for them in society.

[blackbird]

I am with him 100% no civilian should have access to assault weapons, law abiding or not you can not justify owning such weapons.

Edited May 1, 2020 by blackbird

[Rob85]

Well he's absolutely wrong. The 5.56nato round was designed to wound rather than kill, takes more people out of the fight because it takes men to carry the wounded. This is him doing something quickly and capitalising on public outrage to improve his popularity among a lot of his former followers that he lost through that corruption scandal last year. A lot like the dunblane situation, a knee jerk reaction ban that will prevent nothing happening. The guy that committed them crimes in Canada aquired his guns or at least the vast majority of them illegally in america. The only people who will suffer are the law abiding folk.

Edited May 1, 2020 by Rob85
Spelling

[Dave-G]

Apart from the loss of personal choice - what do any of us see as the use of such a rifle in civilian use?

[Walker570]

25 minutes ago, Rob85 said:

Well he's absolutely wrong. The 5.56nato round was designed to wound rather than kill, takes more people out of the fight because it takes men to carry the wounded. This is him doing something quickly and capitalising on public outrage to improve his popularity among a lot of his former followers that he lost through that corruption scandal last year. A lot like the dunblane situation, a knee jerk reaction ban that will prevent nothing happening. The guy that committed them crimes in Canada aquired his guns or at least the vast majority of them illegally in america. The only people who will suffer are the law abiding folk.

Spot on.     HOWEVER  I honestly cannot see why anyone would want an AR15 or similar, horrible weapon ...note I say weapon not gun/firearm ...because that is what they are and designed as.      

[walshie]

I wonder who's going to be the judge of what is an assault weapon and what isn't? I agree a full auto AR15 could be classed as such, but a semi-auto AR15 isn't. Maybe they are just banning full autos?

[MirokuMK70]

31 minutes ago, Rob85 said:

The 5.56nato round was designed to wound rather than kill, takes more people out of the fight because it takes men to carry the wounded. 

An absolute myth. The cartridge was not designed to wound. The smaller calibres were developed following ww2 when studies showed most small arm engagements took place at relatively  short range, that larger high powered rounds were 'overkill' at those ranges and problematic through automatic weapons. The added advantage was allowing a soldier to carry more ammunition into battle. The only reason the high velocity small calibres weren't  more widely introduced in the 50s prior to 5.56 was the usa's insistence on a full power cartridge (7.62) for the nato standard. 

[Scully]

I can’t see a use for full auto outside a battlefield, really, but plenty of use for a semi auto in the field.
I wasn’t aware Canada had a registration requirement for rifles, having overturned the legislation a few years ago, or was that just bolt action mechanism? 

[DUNKS]

42 minutes ago, Walker570 said:

Spot on.     HOWEVER  I honestly cannot see why anyone would want an AR15 or similar, horrible weapon ...note I say weapon not gun/firearm ...because that is what they are and designed as.      

+1

[Rob85]

41 minutes ago, walshie said:

I wonder who's going to be the judge of what is an assault weapon and what isn't? I agree a full auto AR15 could be classed as such, but a semi-auto AR15 isn't. Maybe they are just banning full 

https://bcfirearmsacademy.ca/list-restricted-prohibited-firearms-canada/

 

This is the list of weapons they are banning. I haven't checked them all but from some of the wording I've seen it seems really draconian. It talks about the FN FAL including modified versions, so technically that could mean a straight pull non semi auto?

 

Just to add I'm not sure if this is the new list or not I just found it on Google.

Edited May 1, 2020 by Rob85
Adding text

[DUNKS]

"prohibited."

---

The principal models being prohibited:

• M16, AR-10, AR-15 rifles and M4 carbine
• Ruger Mini-14 rifle
• US Rifle M14
• Vz58 rifle and CZ858 rifle
• Robinson Armament XCR rifle
• CZ Scorpion EVO 3 carbine and pistol
• Beretta Cx4 Storm carbine
• SIG Sauer SIG MCX and SIG Sauer SIG MPX carbines and pistols
• Swiss Arms Classic Green and Four Seasons series rifles

[Retsdon]

10 minutes ago, Rob85 said:

Just to add I'm not sure if this is the new list or not

1998 - it says in the link.

[Danger-Mouse]

49 minutes ago, Walker570 said:

Spot on.     HOWEVER  I honestly cannot see why anyone would want an AR15 or similar, horrible weapon ...note I say weapon not gun/firearm ...because that is what they are and designed as.      

S&W MP 15-22 and Ruger 10/22 semi auto. Pretty much the same gun, same action, same magazine capacity. I own the top one because I like the way it looks. I could do everything equally well with the Ruger but I don't like it as much.

I have no problems with banning fully auto weapons, there's no reasonable use for a civilian to have one. But banning something because of it's image, nah I'll pass on that.

[chrisjpainter]

2 hours ago, DUNKS said:

As from today Canada has banned all assault type weapons. It is illegal to buy sell trade or gift these weapons. All have to be gone within a two year period. Compensations will be made. The PM said such weapons were designed only to kill the maxim amount of people in the shortest time and there was no place for them in society.

Good.

[Scully]

10 minutes ago, Mr_Nobody said:

S&W MP 15-22 and Ruger 10/22 semi auto. Pretty much the same gun, same action, same magazine capacity. I own the top one because I like the way it looks. I could do everything equally well with the Ruger but I don't like it as much.

I have no problems with banning fully auto weapons, there's no reasonable use for a civilian to have one. But banning something because of it's image, nah I'll pass on that.

👍

[Rob85]

31 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

1998 - it says in the link.

Cheers for that.....I did hear it's something like 1500 types of firearm they are banning

[London Best]

An RFD friend tells me his best selling .22 is an assault rifle look alike.

I don’t think they should be allowed to sell even look alikes,
even some air guns are designed to look like combat weapons.

I worry about the people who want to own these things.

WANNABE RAMBOS. IMHO.

[Houseplant]

It's an emotive topic. I agree with the sentiments above and I'm a fudd, you may have to Google that term! We have just gone through the same process in NZ. To play devils advocate, the main arguments against banning these guns are:

A) Personal choice and an issue of private property being taken by government.

B) It's a slippery slope, is clay shooting any more "necessary" than practical gun? Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. I'd hate to end up with gun laws like the UK

C) Lack of logic in banning some types of guns over others, we've lost semi-automatic centrefires, but not semi-automatic shotguns. The latter are just as dangerous as the former, maybe more so at close range. We can also keep semiautomatic 22mag in AR-style, a dangerous gun in the wrong hands. I think the main reason for these choices were to keep duck shooters and pest controllers on side. 

D) An old chestnut, but true. While the licensed, law-abiding gun owners have dutifully handed in their now illegal guns, the criminals/gang members have not, so how has our safety been enhanced?

E) A semi-automatic centrefire is definitely the right tool for the job in some pest control situations. I realise this may be quite specific to NZ.

 

 

[Walker570]

42 minutes ago, Mr_Nobody said:

S&W MP 15-22 and Ruger 10/22 semi auto. Pretty much the same gun, same action, same magazine capacity. I own the top one because I like the way it looks. I could do everything equally well with the Ruger but I don't like it as much.

I have no problems with banning fully auto weapons, there's no reasonable use for a civilian to have one. But banning something because of it's image, nah I'll pass on that.

Why on earth would you need that magazine capacity.  I have a ten shot mag on my Browning T Bolt but have never needed to use them in a string even on a night lamping rabbits.

[Farmboy91]

7 minutes ago, Houseplant said:

 

D) An old chestnut, but true. While the licensed, law-abiding gun owners have dutifully handed in their now illegal guns, the criminals/gang members have not, so how has our safety been enhanced?

 

 

 

I've still yet to see a politician answer that question, be interested in watching one talk their way around it.

If you've been vetted to own a firearm, I can't for the life of me see what difference it looks like makes. The 'AR' style doesn't appeal to me, but, I wouldn't say someone else couldn't have one just because of my opinion. 

Same as practical shotgun, doesn't appeal to me in the slightest but I wouldn't for a minute think nor suggest someone else shouldn't be able to do it.

[Scully]

9 minutes ago, London Best said:

An RFD friend tells me his best selling .22 is an assault rifle look alike.

I don’t think they should be allowed to sell even look alikes,
even some air guns are designed to look like combat weapons.

I worry about the people who want to own these things.

WANNABE RAMBOS. IMHO.

There is absolutely no logic in banning something because of the way it looks, that’s just cosmetics, and that isn’t being suggested. The Browning BAR is a semi automatic sporting rifle which whilst looking nothing like an assault rifle, shares exactly the same mechanism as an AR15 in .223 and a Ruger 10/22 in .22rf. 
Like I said, there is no practical use  in the UK for a full auto rifle, but in semi auto it’s totally practical. Robert Bucknall used his CF Armalite variant to good effect for many years as a foxing tool. He was certainly no ‘wannabe Rambo’; the term is very insulting. 

[chrisjpainter]

1 hour ago, MirokuMK70 said:

An absolute myth. The cartridge was not designed to wound. The smaller calibres were developed following ww2 when studies showed most small arm engagements took place at relatively  short range, that larger high powered rounds were 'overkill' at those ranges and problematic through automatic weapons. The added advantage was allowing a soldier to carry more ammunition into battle. The only reason the high velocity small calibres weren't  more widely introduced in the 50s prior to 5.56 was the usa's insistence on a full power cartridge (7.62) for the nato standard. 

Seriously?! I've spent the last hour running down sources to say this I got all my ducks in order ready to type, only to find you'd already said it! I shouldn't have spent so much time watching Silent Witness at the same time, which by a spooky coincidence was about a soldier who'd been shot in Afghanistan and the fatal round came from a 5.56 British round, not a 7.62 Afghanistan round.

It also makes very little sense if thought through. You're gonna shoot a chap to kill him, so you're going to aim (if you have the time) at bits that are gonna make him a dead'un, whether it's a 5.56, 7.62 or anything else you have at your disposal. If he's only wounded he can shoot back, which makes him a danger to you, whether to kill you or wound and thus take more of your soldiers away from firing because you didn't kill him. 

[Danger-Mouse]

4 minutes ago, Walker570 said:

Why on earth would you need that magazine capacity.  I have a ten shot mag on my Browning T Bolt but have never needed to use them in a string even on a night lamping rabbits.

I don't need that magazine capacity. I bought my S&W second hand and it came with a 10 shot and a 25 shot magazine. I do most of my shooting on a bench and off a bipod, the 25 round mag is useless for that. I'm not into competition shooting but there may be a use for it in that.

We're not talking about magazine capacity though. We're talking about banning a firearm because of how it looks. 

 

[chrisjpainter]

30 minutes ago, London Best said:

An RFD friend tells me his best selling .22 is an assault rifle look alike.

I don’t think they should be allowed to sell even look alikes,
even some air guns are designed to look like combat weapons.

I worry about the people who want to own these things.

WANNABE RAMBOS. IMHO.

Yeah I'm with you on this. If there was the perfect rifle out there for my needs, was in price range and filled a slot on my ticket, but looked like an assault rife, I'd happily buy something else that didn't look like one.Whether it's reasonable to ban something because of the way it looks  is another question, as Scully points out. But It's a matter of image for me; I'd rather not give off the Rambo vibe and a fair few of my non-shooting friends respect that and would prefer my guns to look like tools - not like either toys or weapons.

[Danger-Mouse]

33 minutes ago, London Best said:

An RFD friend tells me his best selling .22 is an assault rifle look alike.

I don’t think they should be allowed to sell even look alikes,
even some air guns are designed to look like combat weapons.

I worry about the people who want to own these things.

WANNABE RAMBOS. IMHO.

That's the knife I use in my kitchen. I use it because I don't have a proper chef's knife and because it's nice and sharp and it does what I need it to. Some people might look at it and say "oh that's a combat knife". It's not, it's just a knife.

This is a chef's knife. If I stab you with it does that make it a combat knife? No it's just a knife.

Btw I love my S&W Mp 15-22, great fun to shoot.

Yours faithfully A Wannabe Rambo (IYO)