Registration leads to confiscation.

Forum Sponsor
FiReSTaRT said:
Agreed. They are inanimate objects and millions of Canadians use them for lawful purposes such as hunting (sustenance and pest/predator control), protection in the bush (most bush camps I worked out of had at least one bear-chaser on staff) and sport shooting. Number of gun owners in Canada is 2000% (yes 3 zeros) of motorcycle owners but the number of gun deaths is only 30% of the motorcycle deaths. The numbers get even more skewed when you just factor in the deaths by lawfully possessed guns. No wonder I'm paying $35 a year for $5,000,000 in shooting injury/death/damage insurance... I don't need to tell you how much we pay for 1/5 of that in bike insurance ;)

Btw, we should congratulate each other on our 60th criminal records check in 2014.. Also congratulating you on the 61st in advance (coming tomorrow) :cool:
Click to expand...

What's this shooting insurance all about? Bear with me, I'm a firearms newb with my permit applications sitting in front of me.
 
You can get liability insurance through NFA or CSSA memberships. Basically, if something bad happens and you need lawyers, you wanna have this insurance coverage.
 
casacrow said:
What's this shooting insurance all about? Bear with me, I'm a firearms newb with my permit applications sitting in front of me.
Click to expand...

If you join a club, chances are they'll mandate a membership with CSSA/NFA/CFI, which runs in the $50 ballpark, $35 of which is your $5,000,000 insurance coverage in case you hurt someone, get hurt through tour stupidity or damage some property. Most clubs don't want you using their facilities without being insured.

On a side-note, CSSA/NFA offer insurance and act as shooter advocacy groups (Mickey Mouse versions of the NRA, definitely don't have any MP's in their pockets lol), while the CFI is a for-profit enterprise that pretends to also be an advocacy group.
 
FiReSTaRT said:
If you join a club, chances are they'll mandate a membership with CSSA/NFA/CFI, which runs in the $50 ballpark, $35 of which is your $5,000,000 insurance coverage in case you hurt someone, get hurt through tour stupidity or damage some property. Most clubs don't want you using their facilities without being insured.

On a side-note, CSSA/NFA offer insurance and act as shooter advocacy groups (Mickey Mouse versions of the NRA, definitely don't have any MP's in their pockets lol), while the CFI is a for-profit enterprise that pretends to also be an advocacy group.
Click to expand...

some clubs join you up with these guys

https://www.ofah.org/
 
FiReSTaRT said:
762_39yrtytr_1.png



7.62x39_fs.jpg

csa-vz58-sporter-223-rem-semi-auto-rifle.jpeg
Click to expand...


They should destroy these things, just look at them. You need a military style gun like these to kill pests?
 
SONIC said:
They should destroy these things, just look at them. You need a military style gun like these to kill pests?
Click to expand...

Assuming that you're not trolling, which is hard to determine based on your assertion that law abiding citizens' property should be destroyed because you don't like its appearance, here's a reality check..

1) Civilian firearms market is A LOT bigger than the military firearm market. There are hundreds of millions of civilian firearm owners who go to work, take care of their families and only use their guns for lawful purposes
2) While these guns may "look" to be "military style", there are significant mechanical differences between what farmer Joe uses to bag a deer and what soldier Jožánek uses to bag a Tango
3) There is a crossover between sporting and military uses because everyone who shoots whether it's to defend his country, put food on the table, eliminate pests of have fun with cardboard cutouts can appreciate good ergonomics, light weight and reliability. Most of us like that in our bikes, too. Our bikes look fast and more dangerous than standard bikes or cruisers but it's the rider that makes the bike safe or unsafe. Would you ban all supersports because of Bibo's antics?
4) When there is a commonality of parts and ammunition between military and civilian guns, civilians can improve their marksmanship through cheap surplus ammunition and get accessories tested under the harshest conditions, while a lot of technological improvements tested by sport shooters make it back across the line to the equipment issued to our armed forces - everybody wins
 
I hear you on some of your points, but if they are as simple as you say, why make them look big and bad if they really aren't. It just supports the idea that some people want to look and feel like they're Rambo by buying a gun that looks like it'll tear someone to shreds. It's the mentality that breeds gun totting gun nuts, like the ones that run around shooting up innocent people, which is likely a reason why they are trying to ban guns that look like this.
 
SONIC said:
They should destroy these things, just look at them. You need a military style gun like these to kill pests?
Click to expand...

I wonder how many times I've seen this debate play out in my lifetime. It's definitely a lot of times!
 
SONIC said:
I hear you on some of your points, but if they are as simple as you say, why make them look big and bad if they really aren't. It just supports the idea that some people want to look and feel like they're Rambo by buying a gun that looks like it'll tear someone to shreds. It's the mentality that breeds gun totting gun nuts, like the ones that run around shooting up innocent people, which is likely a reason why they are trying to ban guns that look like this.
Click to expand...

In most cases it's function over form. Some examples...
-Pistol grips on rifles help you steady your aim when shooting from the standing position and when moving
-Black plastic furniture doesn't soak up carb cleaner and oil that I blast my guns with, while wood will soak it up, warp and affect my accuracy. Plus it's lighter than wood and I like to reduce the weight of anything I carry and not as susceptible to warping due to temperature changes both from the weather and from the barrel heating up after firing a few rounds
-Those curved magazines on some rifles are curved because those particular cartridges feed into the rifle more reliably from a curved magazine.
-Black is cheap, plus easier to aim outdoors when shooting with irons instead of optics

Yes, there is also some marketing aspect to harking back to the rifle's military heritage. For some, it is about the image, kinda like slapping a Yosh on your bike and some flushmounts to streamline it and give it more of a "racing" look even if your gears from 3rd and up never EVER get used on your trips from home to Timmies and back, while you're wearing full on race leathers and pucks that you took to the beltsander. To others, it just says that the rifle will be there for them when they need it, whether it's for a hunt, for defending their family or for a competition, regardless of use or conditions - if it's military spec it must be reliable, like a Mercedes truck. I don't worry about guys who dress in camo and play soldier going on shooting sprees. It's far more likely for some outcast weirdo wearing a trenchcoat or a bathrobe, as history has shown.
 
TwistedKestrel said:
I wonder how many times I've seen this debate play out in my lifetime. It's definitely a lot of times!
Click to expand...

Still, we should make the effort to educate. I used to be on the other side of the debate until 2 things happened...
1) I read Aminal's perspective on helmet laws and the need to allow responsible adults to act responsibly (I still do ATGATT but don't think less of someone who doesn't)
2) I got educated on the topic of guns by engaging in sport shooting

One is less likely to fear the unknown if he gets to know it :)
 
FiReSTaRT said:
Still, we should make the effort to educate. I used to be on the other side of the debate until 2 things happened...
1) I read Aminal's perspective on helmet laws and the need to allow responsible adults to act responsibly (I still do ATGATT but don't think less of someone who doesn't)
2) I got educated on the topic of guns by engaging in sport shooting

One is less likely to fear the unknown if he gets to know it :)
Click to expand...

Interesting post.

1) I wonder what Animals perspective might be and also will there be a test to determine who is and who is not a responsible adult? Smashed melons aren't religion, they're science. A line has to be drawn somewhere. Riding bareback in Speedos and flipflops is still legal. There really hasn't been any creep on our rights to be "responsible adults" vis-a-vis gears since helmet laws were imposed all those decades ago.

2) I've become close friends with a shooter over the last year and have been to the "CLUB" (Burlington) Boy o boy that brass piles up pretty quick. Still not feeling the love. I wonder if blasting a sawed off shotgun at the quarry way back has scarred me for life?
 
inreb said:
Interesting post.

1) I wonder what Animals perspective might be and also will there be a test to determine who is and who is not a responsible adult? Smashed melons aren't religion, they're science. A line has to be drawn somewhere. Riding bareback in Speedos and flipflops is still legal. There really hasn't been any creep on our rights to be "responsible adults" vis-a-vis gears since helmet laws were imposed all those decades ago.

2) I've become close friends with a shooter over the last year and have been to the "CLUB" (Burlington) Boy o boy that brass piles up pretty quick. Still not feeling the love. I wonder if blasting a sawed off shotgun at the quarry way back has scarred me for life?
Click to expand...

1) Somebody with no violent crime convictions in the last half-decade who has successfully passed a course on safe gun ownership and handling. That seems to work. Well, there are some additional hoops like having to confirm with the spouse and having to have your references interviewed, but I gave you the gist of it
2) BRRC has a nice indoor facility, but it's probably not the best place to introduce someone to shooting. The ports are narrow and the rules can be a bit uptight, plus there's a lot of noise due to it being an indoor facility. Still, I introduced some people to shooting down there and they liked the trip. One of them just picked up his first AR and will definitely be taking it coyote hunting (lives abroad)

As for Aminal's perspective on guns.. I won't put words in his mouth, but I know which part of his argument against helmet laws "spoke to me".
 
SONIC said:
I hear you on some of your points, but if they are as simple as you say, why make them look big and bad if they really aren't. It just supports the idea that some people want to look and feel like they're Rambo by buying a gun that looks like it'll tear someone to shreds. It's the mentality that breeds gun totting gun nuts, like the ones that run around shooting up innocent people, which is likely a reason why they are trying to ban guns that look like this.
Click to expand...

Much like cars tend to all look the same, and SUVs tend to all look the same, so do guns. There isn't a radical way to re-design the look of a gun when it's made to perform certain function. Guns look the way they look because they were designed to satisfy a specific need.

Military style rifles all look the same because they follow design guidelines set out by procurement processes in various militaries around the world. Prior to lugging around "evil looking" M16s (AR-15 in civilian terms), US soldiers carried these around:

Beauty-Shot.jpg


It's a Springfield M1A, or M14 by military designation. By today's standards it looks docile, like a hunting rifle.. but why is that? Because the stock is made of wood? Functionally this gun is no different than any modern scary looking black rifle. In fact, the M1A is chambered to shoot .308, a far bigger and stronger round than what the military uses today in 5.56mm. It does so at almost the same rate of fire as an AR-15 or AK47, and it also has removable high capacity magazines. It only differs in looks and build materials... in other words, it's heavier and has no provisions for modern accessories.

Looks are entirely misleading and completely irrelevant. Ultimately, if someone is pointing a gun at you, will you care what colour it is or whether its made of plastic or wood? They can all kill you just as easily. The point of legal and regulated gun ownership in Canada is that the guys who go through the licencing process are vetted by the RCMP. Their criminal and medical/psych backgrounds are scrutinized, and their family members and friends contacted as references. We are the LAST people you have to worry about hurting you. Knowing this, what difference does it make how our guns look? We're the law-abiding ones... we use them for sport. Yeah some of us like military style guns, we like how they work, we like that they're lightweight and easy to handle, and we enjoy shooting them. Why take that away?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom