The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Good2Golf]

A legitimate reason can be to exercise one’s rights to the maximum legal extent possible.

That’s why a rifle such as the Remington 700 PCR Enhanced is still legal in Canada.

 

[Haggis]

In response to:

I'm not unaware of a legitimate reason to own AR-15's, and even a legitimate need, as you're suggesting.

and

How about some sort of screening of those who wish to own a firearm to ensure they have a legitimate reason?

When the AR-15 was still restricted, Canadians had to already justify owning one and that justification was usually competition or target shooting which were legitimate uses up until May 1st, 2020 when they magically weren't.  As a lawful Canadian gun owner you should know that. 

The same could be said for your statements regarding carrying versus transporting a handgun. As a licensee you should know that, too.

Why should one have to justify owning an AR-15 any more than any other firearm? Many hunting rifles are far more powerful and, therefore, more lethal than a legally owned 5 round AR-15.

Have you noticed that an often heard talking point from those who oppose any gun control measures, sometime old existing measures and sometimes new proposed measures, very often draw a comparison to how different Canadians are to Americans? Or perhaps more accurately, how different Canada is to America?

Yes and this is why, again, your comparisons of a lawful Canadian AR-15 owner and a 17 year-old American kid is disingenuous.  Different societies, gun cultures and vastly different gun laws make that comparison invalid.  Someone doing what that kid did - even in an open carry state like Wisconsin -  is breaking more than just gun laws.  More laws wouldn't have stopped him.

Maybe a better solution than creating more laws for criminals to ignore would be to apply and enforce exiting laws more consistently and effectively?

Lastly:

One who needs to be highly proficient with the use of the particular weapons can't be so without using it frequently. Or at least that was my experience with other firearms.

One of the left's favourite talking heads on gun policy, Wendy Cukier of the Coalition for Gun Control (Confiscation?) has stated that lawful gun owners are more dangerous than criminals because they are proficient.  Are we to infer that you believe civilians should not be proficient or that such proficiency leads to criminality?

 

[Haggis]

That’s why a rifle such as the Remington 700 PCR Enhanced is still legal in Canada.

...for now.

 

[Good2Golf]

...for now.

Sadly, you may be right, Haggis.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Lots of questions so I'll try to answer as best I can. 

I'm quite familiar with firearms, had used them for many years, and became very proficient in their use. Fwiw, I don't now and I don't own firearms anymore. Ithink that would place me in the top third of Canadians at least on the use of firearms.  And now by taking part on this thread I'm learning more about Canada's laws. That which is happening in the US is something we don't want to happen in Canada and that's good reason to refer to it.

Soccer moms are the same as all Canadian moms and their opinions are just as legitimate as all dads. If upwards of 70% (?) of Canadians are supportive of our current laws, and more that are proposed then your point could be right on my lack of education, and especially theirs.

The Americans out standing on Main street with their AR-15's deserves closer consideration and a closer look. It's not the AR-15 that's going to kill somebody, it's the person with the gun that's possibly go berserk and kill.  Same as the gun lying on the table example that we're all heard of.

So it's mostly the social ills of that country that are the problem and therefore, IMO, they aren't legitimately of sound enough mind to be allowed to carry their AR-15 on Main street. Their track record tells us so. Consequently, there's good reason to forbid socially unfit Americans to own assault rifles.

And now to how that applies to Canada. We can say we're different but we know in fact that we have some similar bad apples in the barrel too. This is, IMO a good reason to not allow them the type of weapons that are an encouragement of that behaviour.

The legitimate AR-15 owner or wannabe owner in Canada must pay the price of the American experience due to the opinions of those moms (and dads). Therefore, perhaps what is needed is a re-education of the majority of Canadians in order to convince them they are wrong.

Do those Canadians who want to own AR-15's possess the sincerity and compassion it would take to re-educate those millions of soccer moms? I think the first obstacle against accomplishing that would be to not narrow it down to just 'soccer' moms

So 70% of Canadians don't have a clue about our firearms laws, I am failing to see your point? Just because something is popular doesn't mean it is right. If I was to say 90% of people think that wearing a mask is stupid, and the 10% that don't are experts, who are you going to listen to the 90% or the experts? When the general public becomes actually aware of our laws, and has actual exposure to firearms I will take them a bit more seriously. Some peoples opinions aren't as legitimate as others. A doctor's opinion on health is more legitimate than mine. However firearms are one of the few things I actually have a decent amount of knowledge on, enough that at one point I turned down a job to work at the RCMP firearms lab.

The AR-15 isn't a super deadly murder machine, any more than any other rifle is. The USA has the same long gun (which a AR-15, AK-47, etc. are long guns) death rate as Canada despite significantly less controls on them. There was a kid in the USA who shot up his school in I believe Texas with a shotgun and revolver killing 14 a few years ago. That is one of the deadliest school shootings in the USA and a significantly higher kill count than most who use ARs or AKs.

Banning specific firearms is stupid. If you need to have legislation you need to be able to justify it though science. If it is the semi-automatic part which is scary, then all semi-automatics are equally scary. Our firearms act attempted to do that with the prohibited, restricted, and non-restricted classes where they listed what features put them in certain categories. Then they basically said we did this wrong, we shall also ban these specific firearms just because we said so. The AR-15 for example with a 20" barrel should be a non-restricted firearm in this country, but only poor legislation has made it what it is today.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

My intention is not to ignore your points in favour of relaxing handgun laws, but to narrow it down to a managable level of debate. And so this:

And so in my opinion, all roads lead to at least one of those destinations, effectively making it legal to carry a handgun anywhere one should choose and to carry it at any time. Thereby turning Canada into the equivalent of the US on handgun laws.

:cheers:

You realize that Canada used to allow concealed carry far more than it does now? It's a fallacy that guns are not a part of our culture, there are more licensed gun owners in Canada, than people playing organized hockey. I will argue the reason the Libs are pushing gun control is due to the steady rise in gun ownership in Canada and that the increase is been driven by new Canadians and women. (Note women are also a major force in new gun ownership in the US as well)  Also in the US the CCW permit holders have a incredibly small rate of indictment for offenses, in and around the 1% rate for the majority of jurisdictions. The majority of homicides in the US are gang and drug related and over half of them are concentrated in 2% of the counties.     

 

[Donald H]

So 70% of Canadians don't have a clue about our firearms laws, I am failing to see your point? Just because something is popular doesn't mean it is right. If I was to say 90% of people think that wearing a mask is stupid, and the 10% that don't are experts, who are you going to listen to the 90% or the experts? When the general public becomes actually aware of our laws, and has actual exposure to firearms I will take them a bit more seriously. Some peoples opinions aren't as legitimate as others. A doctor's opinion on health is more legitimate than mine. However firearms are one of the few things I actually have a decent amount of knowledge on, enough that at one point I turned down a job to work at the RCMP firearms lab.

That's a very dangerous argument to make in a democratic country Eagleford, but I have to be honest and say that I respect it and understand that there are certain circumstances in which it's quite legitimate. The debate over capitol punishment is another example of where the same argument could be legitimate.

The AR-15 isn't a super deadly murder machine, any more than any other rifle is.

It's a copy of a design that was meant for doing just that if we can say that it was designed for killing people instead of it being a murder weapon. With my limited knowledge I don't know of any other long gun that is better suited to killing people. (that needs to be qualified of course)

The USA has the same long gun (which a AR-15, AK-47, etc. are long guns) death rate as Canada despite significantly less controls on them.

I didn't know that. But I may be misquoting you because you added another sentence: "more than any other rifle.'

There was a kid in the USA who shot up his school in I believe Texas with a shotgun and revolver killing 14 a few years ago. That is one of the deadliest school shootings in the USA and a significantly higher kill count than most who use ARs or AKs.

I'm not familiar with the particular shooting offhand but I'll assume he didn't use an AR-15. If that's true then it would be the exception for school shootings in the US.

Banning specific firearms is stupid. If you need to have legislation you need to be able to justify it though science. If it is the semi-automatic part which is scary, then all semi-automatics are equally scary. Our firearms act attempted to do that with the prohibited, restricted, and non-restricted classes where they listed what features put them in certain categories. Then they basically said we did this wrong, we shall also ban these specific firearms just because we said so. The AR-15 for example with a 20" barrel should be a non-restricted firearm in this country, but only poor legislation has made it what it is today.

I respectfully disagree. GM makes pickup trucks and that's not questioned as legitimate. If they started making pickup trucks with a 50 cal. machine mounted in the bed of the truck, that wouldn't be legitimate in my opinion. AR-15's are a copy of a weapon that was designed to kill people. (I am assuming that's correct) Therefore I consider the AR-15 to not be a legitimate weapon on Canada's streets.

There could be many different long guns that are incorrectly designated as not being legal for civilians to own. That will hopefully be sorted out over time. But at the same time there are in my opinion quite sensible laws being proposed and adopted. For instance, I owned a couple of Remington 1100's and from experience I would say that they are legitimate shotguns to own. They're a lot different from a weapons that was designed to kill people and is super efficient at doing so.

- Staff edit to fix quote box.

 

[Fabius]

I would suggest that tyranny of the majority is a clear and present danger that democracies need to be cognizant of...

The Remington 1100 is a 12 gauge gas operated shotgun, designed in the early 1960s.
The Beretta M4 is a 12 gauge gas operated shotgun, designed in 1998 for the US Military.
Both fire the same ammo, both are capable of similar ammo capacities, both can be similar length and weight with mods.

Do you consider them both legitimate or not? Its an honest question as I have no idea how you can say that this specific firearm was designed for killing people and is not legitimate while this one is not designed for killing people and is legitimate?

Note here that we are not talking about belt fed fully automatic weapons, but rather firearms like the above shotguns, the Lee Enfield, the M1 Garand, M9 Pistol. How about the British Army's Brown Bess, its a flintlock that was designed for use by a military force, hence presumably with the aim of killing the British Empires enemies?

 

[suffolkowner]

I fully expect the rest of semi-automatic rifles to be prohibited as well. What makes a Browning BAR less dangerous than the rifles recently moved from non-restricted and restricted to prohibited? Maybe semi-automatic shotguns will follow. Handguns for sure. I'm not sure how anyone can support a system that bans a bolt action shotgun. Here's a thought, maybe we should stop continuousl letting the truly violent criminals out of jail. The Toronto Sun ran a few articles in the spring on this and the list was astounding

 

[Good2Golf]

The AR-15 and the whole move from 7.62mm to 5.56mm was actually to cause more wounding vice killing, thus committing the enemy to use more soldiers to care for wounded comrades, reducing enemy effectiveness.

 

[Haggis]

I'm not familiar with the particular shooting offhand but I'll assume he didn't use an AR-15. If that's true then it would be the exception for school shootings in the US.

It was clearly stated that he used a shotgun and revolver.  Most school shootings in the US are committed with non-AR style firearms.

AR-15's are a copy of a weapon that was designed to kill people. (I am assuming that's correct).

You are incorrect.  The military M-16/M-4 are descendants of the civilian marketed AR-15.  "AR" is an abbrevaitation of "Armalite Rifle", not "Assault Rifle" as many left wingers would have you believe.

Therefore I consider the AR-15 to not be a legitimate weapon on Canada's streets.

Any AR style rifles on Canadian streets - before and after the May 1st OIC -  are either possessed by the  police or criminals.  Legally owned civilian ARs have been banned from Canadian streets for decades.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Donald H your Remington 1100 is a semi-automatic  (read faster shooting) version of the 870 which as a firearm type probably holds the record for most people killed with a shotgun.

You're hung up on the nuanced opinion that an AR15 is designed for killing yet that arguable hunting shotgun of yours is based off a 70 year old design which is still used the world over by police and the military (on top of everyone else).

If you load that shotgun up of yours with some "hunting" ammo like slugs or OO buck you can cause a hell of a lot of damage. In an enclosed room or building by a single shooter? Way more dangerous than an AR15 IMO. Happy to hear arguments to the contrary if someone disagrees.

 

[Ostrozac]

The AR-15 and the whole move from 7.62mm to 5.56mm was actually to cause more wounding vice killing, thus committing the enemy to use more soldiers to care for wounded comrades, reducing enemy effectiveness.

I’m not so sure about that. The 1962-63 M14 vs AR15 trials run by the US Army Test and Evaluation Command were a major waypoint along the road to the replacement of 7.62mm with 5.56mm. And the trials report (as summarized in The Black Rifle by Stevens and Ezell) talks about accuracy, recoil and weight — but wounding vs lethality isn’t mentioned.

 

[Donald H]

I would suggest that tyranny of the majority is a clear and present danger that democracies need to be cognizant of...

The Remington 1100 is a 12 gauge gas operated shotgun, designed in the early 1960s.
The Beretta M4 is a 12 gauge gas operated shotgun, designed in 1998 for the US Military.
Both fire the same ammo, both are capable of similar ammo capacities, both can be similar length and weight with mods.

Do you consider them both legitimate or not?

It would seem to me that the M4 should be taken into consideration in the same way as the 1100, and I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't be. I would assume it could be fitted with a three round plug.  However, I would be cautious about making that decision if I was called upon to do so. I won't be!

Its an honest question as I have no idea how you can say that this specific firearm was designed for killing people and is not legitimate while this one is not designed for killing people and is legitimate?

I would say that the difference is in the AR-15 being designed for killing people and it's likely the most efficient long gun for that purpose. (qualifications required) While the M4, I am cautiously assuming, is no more efficient than the 1100 for killing people. (possible permutations considered) Short or shortened barrel lengths already adequately covered by law.

Note here that we are not talking about belt fed fully automatic weapons, but rather firearms like the above shotguns, the Lee Enfield, the M1 Garand, M9 Pistol. How about the British Army's Brown Bess, its a flintlock that was designed for use by a military force, hence presumably with the aim of killing the British Empires enemies?

That's a hard one to answer. How about if we consider all of those long guns being analogous to the pickup truck with a box liner and the AR-15 a long gun that is analogous to a pickup truck with the 50 cal. mounted in the box, straight from the GM factory?

To refer to the Lee Enfield, it was a very efficient hunting rifle and I owned a couple of them when I was a kid. Nothing about that rifle to object to as a deer hunting rifle other than the fact that hardpoint ammunition was easily obtained and then used for deer hunting by some people.

The AR-15 is not such a useful weapon for hunting or for target shooting. That is, in my opinion. An opinion that may or may not be valid? I think I'm right on that but maybe that opinion will be challenged?

 

[Haggis]

The AR-15 is not such a useful weapon for hunting or for target shooting. That is, in my opinion. An opinion that may or may not be valid? I think I'm right on that but maybe that opinion will be challenged?

I'll challenge your opinion.  It depends on what you hunt.  For smaller game and varmints the .223/5.56 mm is more than sufficient.

And as far as target shooting, sure, it's totally suitable and remained so for decades, up until May 1st when, magically, it was unsuitable for one reason only - votes. 

"Designed to kill the largest amount of people in the shortest amount of time" presupposes the shooter uses overcapacity magazines, which are already illegal.  One law broken.  The shooter uses those overcapacity magazines to commit murder. Two laws broken.  How many new laws do we need to put in place for this shooter to break?  Do you think the Québec mosque shooter, the Dawson College shooter, the Ecole Polytechnique shooter or the Nova Scotia and New Brunswick shooters were concerned about laws?? Not a single existing laws stopped them.  Not a single new law would have any different effect.

The AR design has led to some amazingly accurate target rifles in many different calibres.  It's only failing is that it has been used in murders in other countries with different gun cultures and didfferent laws which has led to the Trudeau Liberals using it to get re-elected.

 

[GR66]

A picture is worth a thousand words...

 

[Kat Stevens]

It's a copy of a design that was meant for doing just that if we can say that it was designed for killing people instead of it being a murder weapon. So is a Lee-Enfield .303. With my limited knowledge I don't know of any other long gun that is better suited to killing people. (that needs to be qualified of course) AK 47? 74? MP-5? Galil? Steyr Aug? ACR? SCAR?

 

[Donald H]

A picture is worth a thousand words...

If that's correct then I have a totally wrong understanding of what is meant by the term 'firepower'. Maybe somebody will clear that question up?

 

[GR66]

If that's correct then I have a totally wrong understanding of what is meant by the term 'firepower'. Maybe somebody will clear that question up?

Two rifles can have the exact same workings.  Shoot the exact same ammo at the exact same velocity.  Have the same range, ammo capacity, etc. but look totally different.  One has a wooden stock and looks like your dad's old hunting rifle.  The other is black and nasty looking with a pistol grip and appears all "military"...but they are functionally the same rifle.

Here's another example.  Both these rifles are Ruger Mini 14's.  Same capabilities. Both can be used for hunting.  One though is a nasty, scary "assault rifle" and must be kept away from people with mass murderous intent.

Edited to add:  The analogy of one being a normal pick-up truck and the other being a pick-up truck with a machine gun mounted in the bed isn't accurate.  It's more like one is your 50 year old aunt's Honda Accord....and the other it your buddy Gino's Honda Accord that's a low-rider with custom rims, neon lights and a tail fin.  They look totally different and your impression of the way they are driven might be based on their appearance...but they're both just Honda Accords.

 

[RangerRay]

Unless something has changed, I thought Mini14s were banned by OIC as well?

As for the “before times”, Mini14s were unrestricted while AR-15s were restricted. Which made no bloody sense.