Canada Ban

[hod]

14 minutes ago, Farmboy91 said:

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.

At a guess, they would probably point at mass shootings committed with said legally held firearms.

[Rob85]

When they talk about banning military type firearms it wouldn't take much to stretch to banning lee enfields. Very popular in Canada. Do you REALLY need a 10 round bolt action? Can also stick a bayonet on it! How evil!

[Houseplant]

49 minutes ago, Scully said:

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. 

Lots of Browning BAR rifles have been handed in and destroyed. Ironically, the gun of choice for people who needed a semi-automatic, but weren't keen on the military appearance of the AR platform. We now have a large unhappy, borderline disenfranchised gun owning community in NZ which has it's own risks. Prevailing attitudes are more Texas than Surrey! If the gun law changes had been done a little differently and a more slowly, this could have been avoided. 

Edited May 1, 2020 by Houseplant

[London Best]

IMAGE.

It’s all about the image of shooters that you give other people/the public.

As a life long shooting man I am embarrassed and dismayed when I see somebody buying a militaristic looking gun. Incidentally, I have only ever seen such guns in shops or at shows, never in use.

Edited May 1, 2020 by London Best

[stuartyboy]

Each to their own but the one and only time I went to a gun club/indoor.22 range I  found that everyone there who owned (not just borrowed a shot of for the novelty factor) a military style semi automatic .22 rifle was a bit of a oddball. Take offence or not, I don’t intend any, but it was just my findings on the one and only time I went. I never went back for that reason.

Folk argue that a AR15 lookalike.22 semi does the exact same as a .22 CZ or Ruger semi. If that is the case, why do some folk choose the wannabe military style as opposed to the more acceptable, to most, ‘traditional ‘ rifle?

Just my take on it

[Houseplant]

4 minutes ago, stuartyboy said:

 

Folk argue that a AR15 lookalike.22 semi does the exact same as a .22 CZ or Ruger semi. If that is the case, why do some folk choose the wannabe military style as opposed to the more acceptable, to most, ‘traditional ‘ rifle?

 

They would argue ergonomics, weight, easy adjustments of stock and attachments of accessories. I don't like them either, so again I'm playing devils advocate. Regardless, I don't think we should be telling other people they can't use something because we don't like the way something looks. 

[stuartyboy]

5 minutes ago, Houseplant said:

They would argue ergonomics, weight, easy adjustments of stock and attachments of accessories. I don't like them either, so again I'm playing devils advocate. Regardless, I don't think we should be telling other people they can't use something because we don't like the way something looks. 

That’s fine, and if folk want to use anything they’re legally allowed to in a safe and responsible manner, I’m happy with that.

Just in my limited experience of one night at a range and a lifetime of using firearms recreationally and for a living, it’s not for me and the folk who are drawn to that type of gun in my experience are a bit odd. But no offence meant to them though I’m sure they will take offence 

[grahamch]

Completely wrong, typical of a liberal with doubtful morals. The individual should have the right to defend themselves against the scum and dross of society when the **** hits the fan.  Folk in the uk were shafted by government fearful of a rising here after Ireland in the 1920s. We could do with a uk version of the NRA but that won't happen.

 

[grahamch]

4 hours ago, blackbird said:

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

What nonsense the way the world is going the better the individual can defend themselves the better. Why should the dross and scum of society have free reign? Look what happened in the last london riots  when they didn't have the balls to employ water cannon

 

3 hours ago, Scully said:

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? 

Cant agree what about personal defence in a potentially lawless society? 

[hod]

13 minutes ago, grahamch said:

What nonsense the way the world is going the better the individual can defend themselves the better. Why should the dross and scum of society have free reign? Look what happened in the last london riots  when they didn't have the balls to employ water cannon

 

Cant agree what about personal defence in a potentially lawless society? 

We're into the realms of fantasy here if you're referring to UK gun law (as much as I agree with you about the state of society today).

That aside, I'd echo Stuartyboy's concerns re the military style look-a-like .22 guns here.  Although I've never met anyone who owned one, I would be a bit wary of someone who did.  I see no need or use for fully auto military style rifles for civilians given their design and purpose.  Wanting to own a gun that looks like that but isn't, just strikes me as a bit odd.

 

[Farmboy91]

1 hour ago, hod said:

At a guess, they would probably point at mass shootings committed with said legally held firearms.

Which as we all know are, in comparison to 'illegally' held firearms are extremely rare. 

As a minority shooters will always be an easy target. 

Every walk of life has bad eggs, because some choose to drink and drive, should we all be banned from one or the other? 

If the situation didn't involve gun owners I'm sure some lawyer/solicitor somewhere could put a discrimination spin on it. 

[enfieldspares]

Everyone, in their youth, should learn to shoot whatever is classed at the time as the "assault weapon" of that time. Why? So that if they ever had to they have a better chance of survival if they ever went to war. Both my grandfather in WWI and my father in WWII went to war both of them came back. And some of that is because they knew better how to shoot than the men that were on the other side. The helmet of one of those men on the other side I have, still, today. Maybe he too thought that he too didn't need to, or have the chance, learn to shoot with skill the then "assault weapon" of that time either. If so he certainly paid the ultimate price for that omission. And my grandfather took that helmet as a remembrance of that. So my family, including my mother (his daughter) who herself also shot and held her own FAC since the 1930s, for partly that reason alone encouraged and assisted me to learn to shoot. The only "war" at age sixty-two I'm now likely to fight will have CV-19 as the enemy. But certainly in my teens and into my twenties in the 1970s and early 1980s the advantage of having shooting skills with what was then classed as an "assault weapon" was something I felt useful to have learned. 

 

Edited May 2, 2020 by enfieldspares

[Danger-Mouse]

1 hour ago, stuartyboy said:

Each to their own but the one and only time I went to a gun club/indoor.22 range I  found that everyone there who owned (not just borrowed a shot of for the novelty factor) a military style semi automatic .22 rifle was a bit of a oddball. Take offence or not, I don’t intend any, but it was just my findings on the one and only time I went. I never went back for that reason.

Folk argue that a AR15 lookalike.22 semi does the exact same as a .22 CZ or Ruger semi. If that is the case, why do some folk choose the wannabe military style as opposed to the more acceptable, to most, ‘traditional ‘ rifle?

 

Why do some people drive 4WD cars when they never intend going offroad? Why do some people buy lime green cars? Why do some people wear racer style motorbike leathers when they're never intending racing on a track? One reason is because they simply like the style of the item.

Why did I buy an MP 15-22? I liked the look of it. I liked the weight and the handling of it.  It has an excellent reputation. It has a ton of aftermarket fittings and fixtures available for it.  My bolt action, aside from being synthetic is about as traditional as you can get, a CZ 452. I didn't want a similar rifle, I wanted something different. 

Finally, and I hate to break it to you, but as a UK shooter you're a bit of an oddball yourself, even if you do only use traditional rifles. There really aren't that many of us.

[dogone]

  As a Canadian I thought we were in a good place : not as rabid as the US nor as restrictive as some European countries. NOW we are screwed. A lot of recreational firearms will be seized from law abiding citizens. The gov't itself admits that most all firearms used in crime are illegally brought from the US but are making us the scapegoats.

   Strangely there is an exemption for Indians , they supposedly need illegal firearms to hunt. There is a lot to absorb about this new law but non is any good for any firearm owner in Canada.

For a lot more info go to CANADIAN GUN NUTZ and read comments.

[NoBodyImportant]

I try to stay out of politics as my views would make some on here uncomfortable. But if laws work why not outlaw mass murder?  Because if gun laws work then just make killing someone against the law would stop it from happening.  But the truth is gun laws only apply to law abiding citizens.  I lived through the American assault weapons ban.  All it did was open a black market.  During the ban full autos flowed like wine.  To get a hunting rifle you had to pass a background check.  But since assault weapons were illegal they were sold under the table.  In fact before the ban I had never seen a full auto rifle.  During the ban they were everywhere.  In 2004 the ban was scheduled to sunset and congress did a study and found that assault weapon crimes increased during the ban.  They did not renew the ban and assault weapon crime went down.  I own somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 so called assault weapons.  They have never hurt anyone.  I keep a Ar15 beside my bed to protect my family.  I work nights and I want my wife to be able to defend herself when I’m gone.  

[NoBodyImportant]

The AR15 is hands down the best home defense weapon you can own. The Ar15 is a modular weapon that can be reconfigured to fit any person or situation. The ergonomics is second to none.  There is a reason most modern firearms set up there controls like a AR15. Most Name brand AR15s will run thousands of rounds without cleaning or maintenance.    It’s light, no recoil so a small frame woman can handle it.  My son got his first one when he was seven.  He can effectively engage targets out to 100 yards standing and 200 prone with ironsights.   The problem most people have with the Ar15 is the ergonomics and how effective a person with no training can be with it.  That’s why I chose to arm my wife with hers.  

[NoBodyImportant]

No my seven year old didn’t have full auto, his was a burst trigger group but he keeps the selector on semi.  I built his from a old police service rifle that was sold at action from the police department.  I never had I need for full-auto but I’m not going to deny someone else.  I refused to trade a freedom for a false sense of security.  

Plus a semi auto and a mountainside of steel targets is the most fun you can have.  I bought a mountain for the soul reason to shoot into the side of it. 

Edited May 2, 2020 by NoBodyImportant

[Houseplant]

32 minutes ago, NoBodyImportant said:

I try to stay out of politics as my views would make some on here uncomfortable. But if laws work why not outlaw mass murder?  Because if gun laws work then just make killing someone against the law would stop it from happening.  But the truth is gun laws only apply to law abiding citizens.  I lived through the American assault weapons ban.  All it did was open a black market.  During the ban full autos flowed like wine.  To get a hunting rifle you had to pass a background check.  But since assault weapons were illegal they were sold under the table.  In fact before the ban I had never seen a full auto rifle.  During the ban they were everywhere.  In 2004 the ban was scheduled to sunset and congress did a study and found that assault weapon crimes increased during the ban.  They did not renew the ban and assault weapon crime went down.  I own somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 so called assault weapons.  They have never hurt anyone.  I keep a Ar15 beside my bed to protect my family.  I work nights and I want my wife to be able to defend herself when I’m gone.  

 

It's all interesting discussion, especially hearing from people in other countries. I hope the thread stays civilised. As it stands in UK (except N. Ireland) and NZ law you cannot legally own guns for self-defence. There is no equivalent to the American 2nd amendment. The is no right to bear arms. In fact, I think the USA is almost unique in this respect. From a legal point of view, that is the end of the discussion. The moral discussion is somewhat more interesting. 

[NoBodyImportant]

17 minutes ago, Houseplant said:

 

It's all interesting discussion, especially hearing from people in other countries. I hope the thread stays civilised. As it stands in UK (except N. Ireland) and NZ law you cannot legally own guns for self-defence. There is no equivalent to the American 2nd amendment. The is no right to bear arms. In fact, I think the USA is almost unique in this respect. From a legal point of view, that is the end of the discussion. The moral discussion is somewhat more interesting. 

The second amendment is in place to secure the right of the states to govern themselves.  It has nothing to with self defense.   The US federal government was formed for one reason.  To levy taxes for the purpose of raising a standing army to protect the state individual right to govern themselves.  The second Amendment was added to secure the rights of the free state from the federal standing army.   The right of self defense is just common sense.  To limit the right of someone to protect their family from harm is inconceivable. 

[Houseplant]

2 minutes ago, NoBodyImportant said:

  To limit the right of someone to protect their family from harm is inconceivable. 

Not for 192 of the world's 195 countries. 

[NoBodyImportant]

Our gun control stems from a dark period in American history.  We had a system of what are called Jim Crow laws.  They where in place to keep blacks from getting firearms.  Many places still held by democrats are may sign.  Meaning the local sheriff may sign for a weapons permit if he wants but can deny you for any reason. AKA your a black person.  But the NRA has fault to slowly turn those areas into shall sign counties.  The sheriff has to sign if you are not a fellon.  

12 minutes ago, Houseplant said:

Not for 192 of the world's 195 countries. 

I was talking about myself.  To say you can’t protect yourself or family from someone doing you harm seems crazy.  We have areas in the US that are still “Duty to retreat states”. Meaning you have a duty to retreat from you house if a murderer comes in it.  I live in a Castle doctrine state  so my home is my castle and I can make a stand and defend my life or resist an unlawful arrest with deadly force. 

Edited May 2, 2020 by NoBodyImportant

[Houseplant]

Sure. I was just stating a fact, not necessarily agreeing with it. As I said, the morals of gun control are much more interesting than the legalities. In the UK/NZ, there is a concept of reasonable force, so in theory, if they have a gun and you have a gun.... 

[NoBodyImportant]

12 minutes ago, Houseplant said:

Sure. I was just stating a fact, not necessarily agreeing with it. As I said, the morals of gun control are much more interesting than the legalities. In the UK/NZ, there is a concept of reasonable force, so in theory, if they have a gun and you have a gun.... 

Well if a knife welding guy kicks my door in at 3am I want my wife to shoot him.  Not get a steak knife and sword fight him just to make it fair to the intruder.  

[old man]

12 hours 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.

Sadly, that is the way of all legislation it never affects those beyond the law?

Society here also seems quite happy for serious crimes to go relatively unpunished so enhancing it's decline?

Edited May 2, 2020 by old man

[ClemFandango]

8 hours ago, Mr_Nobody said:

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)

 

Neither makes you more or less dead either eh? 

Complex argument but personally I am against the Canadian ruling. 

I bet there are tens or hundreds of thousands of totally law abiding canadians who enjoy using those firearms that have never, or will never use them to do any harm and now they are being penalised. Losing a sport or pass time that they enjoy because of the actions of the  few and political pressure. Kind of sounds familiar? 

Anyone on here from the UK miss their pistol? Can't think of any practical application for a ruger redhawk other than killing people? Oddly mine never did. It just shot paper. Tin cans, skittles. I really enjoyed using it and it got taken away from me. The country is no safer for the fact either. 

I take no enjoyment whatsoever from motorsport of any kind. Noisy and boring if you ask me and there is no practical reason why anyone would want to own a trials bike or a fast car is there? A mini metro is just as good on the road as a ferrari, after all you can only legally travel at 70mph on our roads. 

The carbon dioxide, monoxide and other noxious fumes spewed by these vehicles which have very little regulation governing their emissions, people tinker with them in their garages to alter their performance. For what? Recreation? shame on them. That's not a valid reason to kill the planet is it? 

Ban formula one. Ban the Red Bull Air Race. Ban the Isle of man TT. Ban the sale of any vehicle that travels faster that 70mph. Any motocross or trials bike. We'll have an amnesty on all of these so called "sports" vehicles and give everyone two years to get them chopped up. 

By the end of it the planet will be a safer place, less polluted and we will be reserving the dwindling stock of petrochemicals, as an added bonus we can stick our fingers up to these stupid hicks who think that tearing around on a noisy polluting vehicle whooping and hollering and getting muddy is a responsible way to use valuable resources, pollute the planet and damage the countryside. sick individuals.