The questions though are valid because the answers are absent. Instead it’s theory crafting. Without the law flushed out it demands questions. I don’t see how the credibility of that question on sports shooting is petulance. It’s concern.
The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
- Thread starter Jarnhamar
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 12,100
- Points
- 1,040
Sure it is. Contemporary political and social discourse is full of examples of how making something burdensome in law is a back-handed way of suppressing it. For a change, though, it isn't progressives arguing that somehow some law that burdens people is unreasonable/unfair/unjust.
D
Deleted member 175000
Guest
Valid. Though under that line of thought the presentation and phrasing is all wrong. As I'll get into below.
No it isn't. Because, even under the status quo, it's unequivocally true that you CAN learn to shoot without purchasing and owning. Provided that ranges can still own, maintain, and provide equipment to participants there is no additional barrier to the sport. As long as legislation doesn't block that the sport is protected, making the sport a redherring for ownership
Too many “ifs”. There is a segment that would be all too happy to see sports shooting included in an outright ban.
So I can see why it is questioned.
- Reaction score
- 12,100
- Points
- 1,040
It's not a red herring. People without access to exactly the kind of facility you describe would be denied enjoyment of the sport.
- Reaction score
- 4,068
- Points
- 1,040
It is kind of ironic one of the arguments for getting rid of the Restricted pistols is how many have been imported in the last two decades, when they created the conditions for it. When you think about it the Liberals banned about 50% of the firearms in Canadian hands in 1994. 'Short barrelled' handguns were extremely popular, particularly when a 4" barrel qualified as short. Most revolvers were 4" as it was a good balance between the larger sizes and the pocket pistols. Many other service pistols (notably the Luger among others) were also placed in the prohibited category, as well as any gun in .32 or .25 (which there are a ton of .32 pistols out there, some quite large). The result being anyone who got into pistol shooting after 1994 couldn't acquire many of the pistols in Canada and as such due to supply and demand resulted in a lot being imported to make up for it.
I am willing to bet if they didn't create the 12.6 class there wouldn't have been nearly as many pistols imported as it would just have been a slow increase in purchases.
I am willing to bet if they didn't create the 12.6 class there wouldn't have been nearly as many pistols imported as it would just have been a slow increase in purchases.
D
Deleted member 175000
Guest
People currently enjoying the sport without access to a licensed facility arent law abiding gun owners
- Reaction score
- 9,050
- Points
- 1,160
A statement without a home. Thanks Capt Obvious. Why bring it up?
- Reaction score
- 12,100
- Points
- 1,040
Sure. But the people currently enjoying the sport lawfully aren't limited by facilities that don't care to provide all the equipment.
- Reaction score
- 9,050
- Points
- 1,160
May I ask a few questions? There is no requirement to answer, of course.
How long have you had a PAL with Restricted or Prohibited as a condition?
Do you own restricted or prohibited firearms?
Do you belong to a sanctioned range?
- Reaction score
- 12,914
- Points
- 1,160
What's the name of that NHL player that never owned skates or a stick and just rented them at the hockey rink?
Imagine having to use hockey sticks and skates from a facility instead of your own to get into competitive hockey.
- Reaction score
- 12,100
- Points
- 1,040
Now do swimsuits and swimming pools...
- Reaction score
- 7,991
- Points
- 1,110
We do it with bowling shoes don't we?
D
Deleted member 175000
Guest
A-not the same scope of involvement
B-hygiene
C- you are legally allowed to use hockey equipment away from said facility
D- regular use at different facilities in short timespans (next day if not same day) normal.
As long as ranges are allowed and willing to keep, maintain, and provide equipment on site, the ability to take the equipment from the only space youre allowed to use it to store it at home is not necessary for the viability of the sport.
No no and no. Hence fudd.
I also dont own skis, am not and have not ever been a member of a ski club, and yet I can handle pretty much any black diamond in Ontario(not that that says much)
Haggis
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 4,399
- Points
- 1,140
Do you shoot competitively? I do.
One of the ways by which I learned to compete was by attending matches across the province/country, picking up tips and tricks by watching others run the courses of fire.
Under your construct, if I compete at another club with a short term rental gun I've never trained with (even if the same make and model as my "home club" gun) I'd be at a significant disadvantage while competing against a shooter from the host club using a long term rental gun s/he trains on constantly. That shooter progresses faster than I do. Not all clubs have the all-volunteer staff or facilities to host the same number of matches per season. Some have indoor and outdoor ranges, some only outdoor or indoor. This allows some shooters to train year round, while others cannot. Many who cannot shoot live during the winter months will substitute live fire with dry firing at home, something your rental construct would disallow. This would be another barrier to participation. Yes, there are technological workarounds but they are expensive, another barrier to participation.
The logistics of all clubs managing their short and long term rental inventory, ensuring they have sufficient of each classification for upcoming matches while maintaining their inventory in serviceable condition would be enormous and another barrier to the success of the sport.
Why?
Really? Easily dealt with.
Again. I said Imagine. Now imagine the impact on how player can improve. And if he had to draw equipment from different facilities. That’s the impact on sports shooters.
Not if trying to master one particular thing.
Again, discouraging people reduces competition and improvement. Lessening the viability of the sport.
But you aren’t competing or intend to compete at higher levels. Competitive skiers don’t rent their equipment.
D
Deleted member 175000
Guest
Thank you for this. I appreciate you taking the time to make an informative argument, rather than specious comparisons.
Firstly, and somewhat callously, all sports have the advantaged and disadvantaged. It sucks but its reality.
Secondly, are there not fairly straight forward logistical and regulatory work arounds to those barriers? Licenced members being able to sign out range weapons for travel to another range, ranges organizing transport by "coach" for the unlicensed, etc? The pure rental aspect was the entry level retort to the claim that it would be impossible to enter and practice the sport. Any actual solution would be far more involved.
Thirdly- if such a system and its infrastructure were inplace, couldnt I make the argument that overall barrier to the sport (on an individual level) would be greatly reduced by normalizing non restricted pal, non owner members?
Similar threads
