Canada Ban

[Walker570]

6 hours ago, Mr_Nobody said:

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.

It is the 'mind set' of those people, which deciding to buy a 'military style' rifle , even an air rifle, just bothers me.

[Danger-Mouse]

2 minutes ago, ClemFandango said:

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. 

 

Exactly my point.

I don't mind shooters saying they don't like the style of a firearm and would never want one. However saying that they would be happy if that style was banned is asking for trouble. It's the old "First they came for the . . . and I said nothing" situation.

[Danger-Mouse]

5 minutes ago, Walker570 said:

It is the 'mind set' of those people, which deciding to buy a 'military style' rifle , even an air rifle, just bothers me.

lol Well I'm one of those people and I've explained my reasons and mindset, but hey, you're entitled to your opinion.

Just be careful though, plenty of people out there that don't like your mindset and reasons for owning a gun.

[Houseplant]

56 minutes ago, NoBodyImportant said:

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.  

That conjures a hilarious scene in my mind! It's not quite like that, far from black and white. The outcome would be decided in a court of law with all factors taken in to consideration. 

[oldypigeonpopper]

6 hours ago, Mr_Nobody said:

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.

hello, i must be an oddball then as i cannot see using a MP 15-22 in a traditional type countryside pest control way anything other than madness, not even for target shooting, maybe the USA is happy to accommodate the RAMBOs in their country, cannot imagine any landowner allowing anyone permission,there is no place in this country for such an abhorrent looking rifle

Edited May 2, 2020 by oldypigeonpopper

[Danger-Mouse]

13 minutes ago, oldypigeonpopper said:

hello, i must be an oddball then as i cannot see using a MP 15-22 in a traditional type countryside pest control way anything other than madness, not even for target shooting, maybe the USA is happy to accommodate the RAMBOs in their country, cannot imagine any landowner allowing anyone permission,there is no place in this country for such an abhorrent looking rifle

You own firearms/shotguns in a country where you are very much in the minority, as do I. We're both oddballs to a lot of people.

I don't do any pest control with my rifles but if I did there's no difference between me putting a .22 in Mr Wabbit's head with my S&W or doing so with a Ruger 10/22 or any other semi-auto rifle. The bullet is still fired and the bunny is (hopefully) still dead. The only difference is how the firearm looks and your perception of how it looks. You find it abhorrent and I find it pleasing. Nothing either of us can do about that. 

As for no place for them. Well there are plenty of rifle ranges to shoot them at. At my range people are mostly admiring of the gun, certainly I've never received any negative comments about it.

 

[ClemFandango]

38 minutes ago, oldypigeonpopper said:

hello, i must be an oddball then as i cannot see using a MP 15-22 in a traditional type countryside pest control way anything other than madness, not even for target shooting, maybe the USA is happy to accommodate the RAMBOs in their country, cannot imagine any landowner allowing anyone permission,there is no place in this country for such an abhorrent looking rifle

The same arguments used against those firearms are used against ALL firearms. 

Be careful what you wish for. 

 

[Scully]

1 hour ago, ClemFandango said:

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. 

 

That made me chuckle. 😀👍

1 hour ago, Walker570 said:

It is the 'mind set' of those people, which deciding to buy a 'military style' rifle , even an air rifle, just bothers me.

It is the mindset of those people who enjoy killing things for recreation, which just kind of bothers many others.👍

[MirokuMK70]

3 hours ago, NoBodyImportant said:

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.  

Not judging US gun laws either way, but its interesting that you chose to arm your wife with a rifle for such a potentially close up situation as a home break in rather than a handgun - which a a layman I would expect to be easier to grab and bring to the aim... is that purely down to control/lack of recoil with added knockdown power? Are you permitted to use hollow point or frangible rounds for home defense as i believe one of the complaints with military 5.56 ball is that it zips straight through the target without immediate knockdown power?

Edited May 2, 2020 by MirokuMK70

[old man]

Plenty of MP 15-22's and similar around, used in field, club and social days out for practice. PW days, Catton as was?

I'm personally not interested either but would never support them being removed from legal ownership.

The reason being that political action is always like rats and cheese, nibbling away till all gone. Pistols gone? semi auto's gone? Take your pick for the next to go? 

The criminal faction just carry on regardless totally uncaring about main stream society as their freedoms are not impinged? 

 

 

[Wymondley]

1 hour ago, Walker570 said:

It is the 'mind set' of those people, which deciding to buy a 'military style' rifle , even an air rifle, just bothers me.

I think a Lee Enfield is as  aesthetically pleasing as any London best sxs, does that make me an oddball?

 

[Walker570]

1 minute ago, Wymondley said:

I think a Lee Enfield is as  aesthetically pleasing as any London best sxs, does that make me an oddball?

 

No.  Military style to me includes what are known in the USA as 'Black Rifles', plenty of vidieos of idiots in the USA who seem to need to swan about a town centre with one of these slung over their shoulder. I doubt very much if you feel the need to do such in Hemel Hemstead.

[chrisjpainter]

Just now, chilly1981 said:

Why no diff to shooting with any other semi auto ?? 
and you might not like look of them but remember there’s just as many people that find your old wooden furnitured gun as equally as abhorrent and would like to see that banned too  

 

that type of narrow selfish mindedness your showing now will be reason we lose all our guns in the uk 

People are allowed to disagree with you. You can't accuse someone of being narrow minded without appearing narrow minded yourself. It's a perfectly valid opinion, built on an understandable position. It's just that you disagree with it, which is fine. This is a controversial debate - even on a forum dedicated to people who already enjoy shooting (in some form or other) - so differing opinions are expected. 

[stuartyboy]

I’m not for banning them as people have said, they’re not any more dangerous than any other rifle you can legally buy and use here. As long as they’re used safely and responsibly.

However, I personally don’t want to be associated with them as a shooter. The one time I went to a club and folk where using ‘military style ‘ semi .22s, a few folk where dressed in camouflage trousers, camouflage jacket and black boots  with trousers tucked into the boots. This was an indoor range in a urban area. They weren’t there to target shoot for the thrill of competing or shooting to the best of their ability, but because of the image. An image or perception that doesn’t show shooting in a good light. 

 

[DUNKS]

REPLY ON FACEBOOK

A Canadian lady has replied to the Facebook post, "which is where I got the original info from" and she says as far as she is concerned all guns are designed to ASSAULT  something or other which to her is wrong.

Edited May 2, 2020 by DUNKS

[chrisjpainter]

3 hours ago, NoBodyImportant said:

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. 

I wonder if you could answer something for me. The 2nd Amendment reads: 

'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'

I guess plenty of gun-control advocates would argue that parts of it are arcane - in an age where there's a police force, a National Guard and the standing Federal Army does a citizen's militia really make sense? - but is it argued that home ownership of firearms for this purpose would be ineffectual? The kind of technological, organisational and strategic advantages that a federal army would have in overwhelming a militia make it all a bit...pointless. If it ever came to a state vs federal assault and the President said, 'take 'em', a 'well regulated militia' not including the bodies that already exist ain't gonna stop them, so the Second just allows one to fire back, rather than protects them from it happening in the first place. There must be legislation that does protect them unless it's just symbolic, in which case why not just have symbolic guns?

Is it ever argued that 'well regulated' either implies sensible legislation that might control the type of arms being borne (i.e. not including grenade launchers, RPGs land mines, cluster bombs or anything currently outlawed by international law) or that a sporadic collection of citizens owning home defense weapons for use against the federal state doesn't amount to it being 'regulated'?

Just a matter of curiosity, not a matter of personal opinion!

[clumber]

5 hours ago, dogone said:

  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.

Dogone,

What's the deal with the Carbon Tax you're being levied with? 

I've watched Quick **** McDick on YouTube, a light hearted take on serious issues, and it seems like the government is willing to destroy the country in search of money?

 

[chrisjpainter]

25 minutes ago, chilly1981 said:

At no point did I say he couldn’t disagree but I pointed out the fact it’s that sort of thinking that ends up everything banned 

 

as far as been narrow minded I shoot pretty much every discipline with Wooden guns and plastic guns I foot walk up days in tweeds and practical days in cargo pants  I don’t want to see any form banned infact I try to encourage people into all disciplines of the shooting sports 

It's the inability to draw distinctions that ends up with getting everything banned. As long as we're able and allowed to codify what is reasonably acceptable and what isn't, then there is no slippery slope. We all accept common sense litigation (Problem with deer in a piece of woodland? Land mine the area. Squirrels got you vexed? flame thrower the dreys). It's just the degree to which we take those common sense arguments. Right now, I think the UK laws are as acceptable as they could be. It does mean that thousands of law abiding citizens can't do something that they would enjoy and bear no threat to anyone or anything (as in the case of handgun ownership) but it also stops more (not all) crazies from ending up with a gun in their hand. It's an act of patriotism to lay down some rights for the protection of others. 

[enfieldspares]

Quote

Not judging US gun laws either way, but its interesting that you chose to arm your wife with a rifle for such a potentially close up situation as a home break in rather than a handgun - which a a layman I would expect to be easier to grab and bring to the aim... is that purely down to control/lack of recoil with added knockdown power? 

No. A handgun is the most difficult sort of weapon to shoot and put its rounds on target. Which is one reason why in WWII the US developed and equipped those soldiers who in other armies might carry pistols with the M1 Carbine. Despite the fact that in doing so it was in fact then burdening its wartime supply system with an extra, new, calibre of ammunition and for the weapon itself spare parts and magazines. Giving a person a "handy" length rifle of the size and low recoil of in the 1940s an M1 Carbine and in the 2020s an AR15 makes them better able to defend themselves.

Edited May 2, 2020 by enfieldspares

[enfieldspares]

There are many in the UK and indeed in the US who don't understand the 2nd Amendment. "Well regulated" means well equipped and militia means? Militia in the US means every adult male between age seventeen and forty-five not in the standing armed forces or the National Guard. 

The President of the United States in fact cannot order "take 'em" to the US Army. It would be an illegal order. The doctrine of "posse comitatus" makes it mostly unlawful to use the US Army on US soil. Lastly for those that argue that the 2nd Amendment is a relic of history Google "Battle of Athens 1944".

Edited May 2, 2020 by enfieldspares

[Scully]

5 minutes ago, chilly1981 said:

 

Also people commenting about wannabe rambos mindset these people have jumped through same hoops as we have to get our tickets and have been judged by authorities to be of same sound mind as the people that only have traditional style guns 

 

 

This.

[Farmboy91]

42 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

 

I guess plenty of gun-control advocates would argue that parts of it are arcane - in an age where there's a police force, a National Guard and the standing Federal Army does a citizen's militia really make sense? - but is it argued that home ownership of firearms for this purpose would be ineffectual? The kind of technological, organisational and strategic advantages that a federal army would have in overwhelming a militia make it all a bit...pointless. If it ever came to a state vs federal assault and the President said, 'take 'em', a 'well regulated militia' not including the bodies that already exist ain't gonna stop them, so the Second just allows one to fire back, rather than protects them from it happening in the first place. There must be legislation that does protect them unless it's just symbolic, in which case why not just have symbolic guns?

 

To counter that I would say you only have to look at what's happened in the middle East over the last 30-40 years. An army, no matter how well equipped will not succeed against a determined local population. 

Which, going by some of the things I've seen and heard is what they might be up against should the president give such an order. 

[Wymondley]

58 minutes ago, Walker570 said:

No.  Military style to me includes what are known in the USA as 'Black Rifles', plenty of vidieos of idiots in the USA who seem to need to swan about a town centre with one of these slung over their shoulder. I doubt very much if you feel the need to do such in Hemel Hemstead.

Have you been to Hemel recently?

I'm Hitchin way, town centre fashion dictates a Purdey on market days.

Seriously though, I get that, but it's the thin end of the wedge when you think things should be banned because of how they look or indeed how they perform.

 

 

 

[Robertt]

No gun, Assult weopen or otherwise, jumps out of a safe and kills anyone.

Its all about keeping loonies and any firearm seperate.

1966 Whitman shot 30+ with a Rem 700, a bolt action hunting rifle using soft pointed ammo.

God forbid If that happened now, there would be a massive outcry for all sporting guns to be banned.

What would we have to say about that?

 

 

Edited May 2, 2020 by Robertt
Spilling

[Scully]

21 minutes ago, Wymondley said:

it's the thin end of the wedge when you think things should be banned because of how they look or indeed how they perform.

 

 

 

And this. If it really is a matter of striking a balance between allowing the use of guns for 'sporting use' ( instead of political expedience ) and ensuring the safety of the general public, how would anyone feel about us been allowed single shot firearms and nothing else? People would still be allowed to decoy pigeons, crows, driven game of all types, and pest control of all types would still be allowed.....but with single barrelled single shot firearms only, which required loading after each shot? 

By current logic, if it's just a question of firepower, nobody needs an eight shot semi automatic or pump action shotgun ( especially in black! ) anymore than anyone needs a 10 shot magazine in a bolt action rifle or the same in a .22rf semi automatic rifle. Why do we need two barrels on a sxs or an OU? Tradition? Not so, many of the first sporting shotguns were simply single shot rifles loaded with shot. Could it be an increased chance of bringing home the metaphorical bacon? There is absolutely no NEED to bring home the bacon anymore, but some are in so much of a rush to kill more birds on a driven day that they employ loaders and stuffers.

Our wives usually bring home the bacon nowadays, bought from the local butchers or supermarket. I can't deny there is absolutely no practical 'sporting' use for a full auto rifle, but be careful where you're pointing your criticism and what you wish for, in todays climate it may well come back and bite you.