I read something in passing that the liberals passed legislation back when they had a majority that allowed this specific change to be made by cabinet order.
I plan to tuck into it more when I get home this evening.
|
|
|
Justin Time
- Thread starter Baggsy
- Start date
- Status
I plan to tuck into it more when I get home this evening.
Guns for personal protection is not a solid use-case in 99.99% of cases, at least for human v human conflict; it's a good choice for defending against animals if you're in that sort of situation.
That said, I imagine that the "women don't need guns for protection" argument presented is probably more cultural, whether we agree with it or not; men are generally in a situation where they "protect" the women/children, or feel they should. Women also may be afraid of them (my wife doesn't like them at all). I'm not big on classic gender roles personally and my wife is stronger than most guys, but it is what it is.
Carrying a weapon in normal daily life seems bonkers to me, and I've discussed this with my American coworkers who do carry. I got the feeling that it was a case of "everyone else has one, so I should too".
As much as we all crap on gun-toting Murica, I am constantly amazed that there are not more incidents where innocent people are mowed down by well-meaning good citizens trying to stop a bad guy and not paying attention to people beyond. Not sure if they have more restraint than we give them credit for, more situational awareness (higher percentage of US had military training), or just enough space and luck.
Ya, me too. But when you think about it, the first thing someone with a concealed carry is going to do is run and hide in the event of gunfire in a crowd.
My 2 cents, as a gun owner
Regarding the system pre-OIC:
1. Why are AR's restricted but other semi-autos are not? Most have similar capabilities and functionality. It is idiotic - classify stuff based on capability rather than appearance. Whether that means allowing AR's for hunting (not popular outside gun community) or moving semi-autos to restricted (not popular inside the gun community), for god's sake make it consistent. Maybe compromise, make semi-autos restricted but allow them for hunting. That means they are registered, have tighter storage restrictions, and require the RPAL. Its unpopular on both sides but at least shows some semblance of common sense and consistency
2. Increase the barrier to entry of gun ownership, that's fine IMO. Increase the class time, or test difficulty, or background checks, I am OK with these things personally
3. I am OK increasing storage requirements, some are flimsy as-is
4. The general public do not understand firearms regulations. Many Canadians think we can obtain fully automatic firearms, or walk down the street with an AR or go hunting deer with one. They don't understand transportation or storage regulations. Most people don't understand the licensing process. I saw someone in here saying that getting a gun legally was easier than a car - I don't think so. Especially not a motorcycle.
Post-OIC:
1. Banning specific makes of firearms because they were used in shootings is purely reactionary. Again - treat all semi-autos the same. This to me seems equivalent to banning specific makes of vehicles used in vehicular attacks. It is just whack-a-mole, without increasing the barrier to a mass shooting
2. Make choices based on capabilities - why is the M14 prohibited but my .30-06 M1 Garand is not? It's idiotic. Again, if you want to stop mass shootings, increase the barriers to obtaining ANY semi-auto if you are looking to restrict gun ownership
My main concern is the effectiveness of the money being spent. They are going to spend a ******** of money buying back guns that would have otherwise probably never been an issue. The only problem, as pointed out by PP, is if they get stolen - less of an issue if we boost up storage requirements and register semi-autos (unpopular, yes, but better than the OIC)
If I am going to get screwed by a law (and I am in-line to get screwed by this one) then I at least want the law to be somewhat effective at its initial purpose, and I do not feel like this one will be
Regarding the system pre-OIC:
1. Why are AR's restricted but other semi-autos are not? Most have similar capabilities and functionality. It is idiotic - classify stuff based on capability rather than appearance. Whether that means allowing AR's for hunting (not popular outside gun community) or moving semi-autos to restricted (not popular inside the gun community), for god's sake make it consistent. Maybe compromise, make semi-autos restricted but allow them for hunting. That means they are registered, have tighter storage restrictions, and require the RPAL. Its unpopular on both sides but at least shows some semblance of common sense and consistency
2. Increase the barrier to entry of gun ownership, that's fine IMO. Increase the class time, or test difficulty, or background checks, I am OK with these things personally
3. I am OK increasing storage requirements, some are flimsy as-is
4. The general public do not understand firearms regulations. Many Canadians think we can obtain fully automatic firearms, or walk down the street with an AR or go hunting deer with one. They don't understand transportation or storage regulations. Most people don't understand the licensing process. I saw someone in here saying that getting a gun legally was easier than a car - I don't think so. Especially not a motorcycle.
Post-OIC:
1. Banning specific makes of firearms because they were used in shootings is purely reactionary. Again - treat all semi-autos the same. This to me seems equivalent to banning specific makes of vehicles used in vehicular attacks. It is just whack-a-mole, without increasing the barrier to a mass shooting
2. Make choices based on capabilities - why is the M14 prohibited but my .30-06 M1 Garand is not? It's idiotic. Again, if you want to stop mass shootings, increase the barriers to obtaining ANY semi-auto if you are looking to restrict gun ownership
My main concern is the effectiveness of the money being spent. They are going to spend a ******** of money buying back guns that would have otherwise probably never been an issue. The only problem, as pointed out by PP, is if they get stolen - less of an issue if we boost up storage requirements and register semi-autos (unpopular, yes, but better than the OIC)
If I am going to get screwed by a law (and I am in-line to get screwed by this one) then I at least want the law to be somewhat effective at its initial purpose, and I do not feel like this one will be
Part of me wants to know how long it took and how much it cost to draw up this list of 1500 weapons. The rest of me really doesn't want to know as it will be a tragically high number. Your system makes a lot more sense. All semi-auto now . . . That's saves many man-years of government time trying to document every model number and variant.
It's insanity. Banning specific missile launchers?? And it is all based on reactionary thinking at its core. What happens when a manufacturer comes out with a new semi-auto? Is it legal to hunt with it until it gets added to this list? The government has committed to playing an indefinitely long game of whack a mole
You're kidding yourself if you believe anyone at the PMO even bothered preparing to answer these questions. There is no rhyme or reason other then political points.
It's basically 1450 different makes of AR15s and 10s then a bunch of mortars, missiles, rpgs, mini 14s, CX4s and some weird guns with a bajillion joules of energy at the muzzle. That list in skeleton form was circulating freely for a few days beforehand and had been around for quite a while before that from an RCMP lab apparently.
They held up picture cards of guns for Justin.
Black? Ban
Black? Ban
Black? Ban
Black? Ban
Black? Ban...........
Or the most logical explanation: It almost never happens.
I would pay to see that.
Stingers are much more effective for kite defense.
THANK GOD they weren't on the ban list ?
Hack
Well-known member
Keep looking . You will never find logic behind any of these bans.
I'm waiting for the day when the police give up their AR's because they're not "needed" and really only designed to kill the most people in the shortest time... or are their AR's somehow different than mine?
I'm waiting for the day when the police give up their AR's because they're not "needed" and really only designed to kill the most people in the shortest time... or are their AR's somehow different than mine?
I'd venture to bet most of these handcannon toting manchildren we're seeing a lot of in the news right now in the USA would be screaming like a little girl and running to hide if they ever actually ended up in the sort of situation their armament is designed for.
These "militiamen" should go and join the army if they want to play GI Joe. They could go have kinds of fun travelling the world and shooting all sorts of neat weapons on the governments dime, and get paid on top of it..and actually benefit their country. But nah, that whole basic training thing and then having to listen to and follow orders is too hard. Easier to just play Elite Special Forces Commando on Instagram and Facebook instead.
Unfortunately the very rare stories where a citizen with a concealed, or open carry weapon stop an attacker or other crimes are rarely reported on.
Also, since most mass murder situations occur in "gun free" zones, law abiding firearms owners would be lawfully complying with such an order and also be unarmed unlike a criminal.
But yes, I do agree that the majority of people would not engage in an active shooter situation even if they were carrying.
Self preservation would most likely be the order of the day.
You also would not to be running around brandishing a weapon and be mistakenly identified as the perpetrator should leo's arrive on scene.
I could honestly say that were I to ever be in such a situation I would hide and seek cover drawing my weapon to defend myself and others vs going on the offensive.
Last edited:
- Status
|
|
|
|
|