• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

Lumber said:
This is not a question designed to elicit a "gotcha" moment; as a non-hunter I am literally just ignorant:

How many of you and/or how often while hunting did you:
a. use a semi-auto rifle while hunting; and
b. actually use the semi-auto function in the process of taking down the animal? (i.e. shoot 2-3 times in quick succession)

I have it in my mind that hunters only ever fire one bullet and one bullet only to take down a target, and I want to figure out if that's a wild and incorrect assumption or not.
Click to expand...
I'll give you an example - pest control. I own a property about 100 kms West of Ottawa, and spend a fair bit of time walking it with our three dogs. The area that this property is in is practically overrun with Coyotes. So, I purchased a firearm (a Ruger PC Carbine, in 9mm) that is semi-automatic, specifically because when a Coyote comes out of the bush on a run, going for your animals, you very likely won't hit it with the first shot, and follow-up shots with a bolt gun, or even a lever gun, are slower than with a semi-auto. The reasons for this are: 1) it takes time to cycle the action, and 2) additional time to re-acquire the "target". By the time you are able to take a second shot, it could literally be too late. A running Coyote is a hard target to hit, and having to stop and load another round into the chamber "manually" makes the chances of a successful hit on a follow-up shot much much harder. This is where a semi-auto comes into its own - in situations where a fast follow up shot (or shots) is needed. I would add that even in standard hunting situations, sometimes having a quick follow-up shot is the difference between an ethical kill, and a wounded animal bolting after being hit and dying a painful death somewhere in the bush. There are many semi-auto rifles chambered in popular center-fire hunting cartridges like .308, .243, and .270. The Browning BAR is a good example of a popular semi-auto rifle used quite extensively by hunters.

The annoying thing is I purchased that Ruger PC carbine after very careful consideration about what the government might at some point in the future try and ban as an "assault style" weapon. This is a pretty ordinary looking firearm, with non-tactical stocks, firing a low-power (by rifle standards) round. It fit the bill for me, as I'm only looking at distances of 50-75m, typically, and a 124 grain 9mm is more than adequate for Coyotes at those ranges. But, I see in the recent amendment to C-21 that this rifle is on the list, so I stand to lose it if this goes through. The irony of this is that for my particular "use case", an AR platform in .223 would be the ideal solution.
 
calculus said:
I'll give you an example - pest control. I own a property about 100 kms West of Ottawa, and spend a fair bit of time walking it with our three dogs. The area that this property is in is practically overrun with Coyotes. So, I purchased a firearm (a Ruger PC Carbine, in 9mm) that is semi-automatic, specifically because when a Coyote comes out of the bush on a run, going for your animals, you very likely won't hit it with the first shot, and follow-up shots with a bolt gun, or even a lever gun, are slower than with a semi-auto. The reasons for this are: 1) it takes time to cycle the action, and 2) additional time to re-acquire the "target". By the time you are able to take a second shot, it could literally be too late. A running Coyote is a hard target to hit, and having to stop and load another round into the chamber "manually" makes the chances of a successful hit on a follow-up shot much much harder. This is where a semi-auto comes into its own - in situations where a fast follow up shot (or shots) is needed. I would add that even in standard hunting situations, sometimes having a quick follow-up shot is the difference between an ethical kill, and a wounded animal bolting after being hit and dying a painful death somewhere in the bush. There are many semi-auto rifles chambered in popular center-fire hunting cartridges like .308, .243, and .270. The Browning BAR is a good example of a popular semi-auto rifle used quite extensively by hunters.

The annoying thing is I purchased that Ruger PC carbine after very careful consideration about what the government might at some point in the future try and ban as an "assault style" weapon. This is a pretty ordinary looking firearm, with non-tactical stocks, firing a low-power (by rifle standards) round. It fit the bill for me, as I'm only looking at distances of 50-75m, typically, and a 124 grain 9mm is more than adequate for Coyotes at those ranges. But, I see in the recent amendment to C-21 that this rifle is on the list, so I stand to lose it if this goes through.
Click to expand...
That is a good answer. Predators hit quick and hard and are often on the move. IF they decide you're their prey - this won't happen often - a semi auto is the answer.
 
If you're carrying for defence against animals, a semi-automatic is prudent. And there are definitely places where carrying for defence against animals is necessary (unless you're that guy who liked bears so much he said he'd be honoured to be bear scat one day - and he is).
 
IKnowNothing said:
Hypothetical here. In an alternate universe an honestly well-meaning (as opposed to vote and fear mongering) LPC seeks to tighten gun control in a fair and effective way. In addition to measures expressly aimed at criminals committing firearms related offenses (harsher penalties, strict liability for unlawful possession, etc) they seek to reduce access to the guns that make mass shootings easier. Instead of hysterical and nonsensical "assault weapon" and handgun bans, they, in consultation with the CPC and firearms groups come up with a fair and clear definition of weapon to be added to the Restricted class (not banned). Two year grace period for PAL holders to upgrade to RPAL, with expedited processing.

Example definition/ criteria: semi-auto, centrefire, commercially marketed after 19xx, designed with intent for reload via variable capacity detachable magazine (not an integral mag designed for reload via en bloc/stripper/ single round that happens to be detachable).

Tolerable? Reasonable?
Click to expand...

Only if you can convince me that further laws on the already law abiding is somehow going to curb criminal illegal ownership of firearms.

Gun control is the low hanging fruit. It's the cheap way to make the perpetually scared feel like action is being taken. When in reality what need is more and better trained police, rock solid border control and a robust mental health.
 
Halifax Tar said:
Only if you can convince me that further laws on the already law abiding is somehow going to curb criminal illegal ownership of firearms.

Gun control is the low hanging fruit. It's the cheap way to make the perpetually scared feel like action is being taken. When in reality what need is more and better trained police, rock solid border control and a robust mental health.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to be able to do that. But I can propose that "criminal illegal ownership of firearms" is one of three avenues to gun related (non-suicide) violence- particularly when homicide is the objection
A- criminal illegal ownership - gang bangers etc. Gun control laws have no effect, and the government is not doing near enough for political reasons.
B-person that desires to commit violence seeks legal ownership
C-person with legal ownership desires to commit violence

I'll fully concede that in Canada A is the greater issue (and even then not a big one in the National context), but when we look to the South, we can see B and C become serious threats to public safety at the intersection of insufficient gun control and sufficient societal... angst? That angst level is rising in Canada. I wholly admit to being a fudd, but have been around guns all my life. 6-10 years ago I'd be fully against the need for any further gun control in Canada, and am in no way in favour of Bill C21 or the "assault weapons" ban. That being said, I can see the argument that the PAL (which can be passed by a reasonably trained monkey) is not a high enough bar to be the only thing standing in between increasingly disgruntled/radicalized/ scared / disenfranchised people and a modded Ruger Mini with no purpose other than the planned or hypothetical taking of human life, hence musing about the RPAL as a compromise to raise the bar on who has high capacity semis without all this ban nonsense.
 
calculus said:
I'll give you an example - pest control. I own a property about 100 kms West of Ottawa, and spend a fair bit of time walking it with our three dogs. The area that this property is in is practically overrun with Coyotes. So, I purchased a firearm (a Ruger PC Carbine, in 9mm) that is semi-automatic, specifically because when a Coyote comes out of the bush on a run, going for your animals, you very likely won't hit it with the first shot, and follow-up shots with a bolt gun, or even a lever gun, are slower than with a semi-auto. The reasons for this are: 1) it takes time to cycle the action, and 2) additional time to re-acquire the "target". By the time you are able to take a second shot, it could literally be too late. A running Coyote is a hard target to hit, and having to stop and load another round into the chamber "manually" makes the chances of a successful hit on a follow-up shot much much harder. This is where a semi-auto comes into its own - in situations where a fast follow up shot (or shots) is needed. I would add that even in standard hunting situations, sometimes having a quick follow-up shot is the difference between an ethical kill, and a wounded animal bolting after being hit and dying a painful death somewhere in the bush. There are many semi-auto rifles chambered in popular center-fire hunting cartridges like .308, .243, and .270. The Browning BAR is a good example of a popular semi-auto rifle used quite extensively by hunters.

The annoying thing is I purchased that Ruger PC carbine after very careful consideration about what the government might at some point in the future try and ban as an "assault style" weapon. This is a pretty ordinary looking firearm, with non-tactical stocks, firing a low-power (by rifle standards) round. It fit the bill for me, as I'm only looking at distances of 50-75m, typically, and a 124 grain 9mm is more than adequate for Coyotes at those ranges. But, I see in the recent amendment to C-21 that this rifle is on the list, so I stand to lose it if this goes through. The irony of this is that for my particular "use case", an AR platform in .223 would be the ideal solution.
Click to expand...
You don't need the gun because:

1. You don't need the property, buy a condo instead;
2. You don't need to be walking on the property, go walk down the neighborhood sidewalk or a park trail;
3. You don't need to infringe on the rights of the coyote to attack a dog that's intruding on it's territory.

In fact, if you're buying property it's probably because you have too much money so taxes will increase for, you know, climate change.
 
Brad Sallows said:
If you're carrying for defence against animals, a semi-automatic is prudent. And there are definitely places where carrying for defence against animals is necessary (unless you're that guy who liked bears so much he said he'd be honoured to be bear scat one day - and he is).
Click to expand...
The fact that game wardens are now equipped with AR-10s is enough of a reason why hunters should be armed likewise.
 
IKnowNothing said:
I'm not going to be able to do that. But I can propose that "criminal illegal ownership of firearms" is one of three avenues to gun related (non-suicide) violence- particularly when homicide is the objection
A- criminal illegal ownership - gang bangers etc. Gun control laws have no effect, and the government is not doing near enough for political reasons.
B-person that desires to commit violence seeks legal ownership
C-person with legal ownership desires to commit violence

I'll fully concede that in Canada A is the greater issue (and even then not a big one in the National context), but when we look to the South, we can see B and C become serious threats to public safety at the intersection of insufficient gun control and sufficient societal... angst? That angst level is rising in Canada. I wholly admit to being a fudd, but have been around guns all my life. 6-10 years ago I'd be fully against the need for any further gun control in Canada, and am in no way in favour of Bill C21 or the "assault weapons" ban. That being said, I can see the argument that the PAL (which can be passed by a reasonably trained monkey) is not a high enough bar to be the only thing standing in between increasingly disgruntled/radicalized/ scared / disenfranchised people and a modded Ruger Mini with no purpose other than the planned or hypothetical taking of human life, hence musing about the RPAL as a compromise to raise the bar on who has high capacity semis without all this ban nonsense.
Click to expand...

A- the argument I hear from my sister, A Toronto apartment dwelling semi-Liberal minded single lady is, If the people don't have guns than the criminals wont be able to steal them. The government helps this belief by ignoring the smuggling issue altogether. They let people guess where the illegal guns are coming from and no one likes to think our border is so porous. I read somewhere once that when the police seize guns from drug busts etc. if they don't know where they came from they are classed as unknown and presumed stolen. When in fact they almost always are smuggled guns. The Liberals removed the mandatory minimum sentence for gun crimes citing racism, this just made smuggling easier. Bill C-5: Mandatory Minimum Penalties to be repealed - Canada.ca
I guess gun lobbies aren't as big of Liberal party donors as organized crime.

B&C- Unfortunately there will always be a segment of the population that desires to commit violence, no amount of gun control will solve this. As HT said a robust mental health system is needed, this has been sorely lacking. The increase in societal angst is in large part to do with the current culture of cancelling/shaming people who don't think like you. Respect of your fellow mankind is sorely lacking and would go a long way to solving these issues. By this I mean all people even the ones that you disagree with.
 
IKnowNothing said:
I'm not going to be able to do that. But I can propose that "criminal illegal ownership of firearms" is one of three avenues to gun related (non-suicide) violence- particularly when homicide is the objection
A- criminal illegal ownership - gang bangers etc. Gun control laws have no effect, and the government is not doing near enough for political reasons.
B-person that desires to commit violence seeks legal ownership
C-person with legal ownership desires to commit violence

I'll fully concede that in Canada A is the greater issue (and even then not a big one in the National context), but when we look to the South, we can see B and C become serious threats to public safety at the intersection of insufficient gun control and sufficient societal... angst? That angst level is rising in Canada. I wholly admit to being a fudd, but have been around guns all my life. 6-10 years ago I'd be fully against the need for any further gun control in Canada, and am in no way in favour of Bill C21 or the "assault weapons" ban. That being said, I can see the argument that the PAL (which can be passed by a reasonably trained monkey) is not a high enough bar to be the only thing standing in between increasingly disgruntled/radicalized/ scared / disenfranchised people and a modded Ruger Mini with no purpose other than the planned or hypothetical taking of human life, hence musing about the RPAL as a compromise to raise the bar on who has high capacity semis without all this ban nonsense.
Click to expand...
I don't agree. If someone want to kill a bunch of people they're going to find a way. Infringing on me, because of a hypothetical or what ifs is a useless excersize and unfairly categorizes me.
For interest sake and getting things right while speaking of classifications, there is no RPAL. There are only PALs with different categories. There are PALs with restricted classification and PALs with prohibited. And PALs with both. Just PALs. I don't care myself, just putting that out there.
For decades, they have been putting more and more hoops in our way. We've always complied. The constant, ever changing creep. Whatever they threw at us, we did.
Now because of our compliance and stupidity in believing our government would never force full confiscation on us, here we sit. Wondering what trudeau will steal from us next.
We have been more than generous following the government's edicts. And now they just want to steal everything and outlaw it. That's the thanks we get for trying to play fair against a dishonest, agenda driven oligarcy.
No, I don't think there is any more room for compromise. They've finally tipped their hand and showed us their end state. They can't be trusted. You don't compromise or even discuss with weasels.
 
IKnowNothing said:
I'm not going to be able to do that. But I can propose that "criminal illegal ownership of firearms" is one of three avenues to gun related (non-suicide) violence- particularly when homicide is the objection
A- criminal illegal ownership - gang bangers etc. Gun control laws have no effect, and the government is not doing near enough for political reasons.
B-person that desires to commit violence seeks legal ownership
C-person with legal ownership desires to commit violence

I'll fully concede that in Canada A is the greater issue (and even then not a big one in the National context), but when we look to the South, we can see B and C become serious threats to public safety at the intersection of insufficient gun control and sufficient societal... angst? That angst level is rising in Canada. I wholly admit to being a fudd, but have been around guns all my life. 6-10 years ago I'd be fully against the need for any further gun control in Canada, and am in no way in favour of Bill C21 or the "assault weapons" ban. That being said, I can see the argument that the PAL (which can be passed by a reasonably trained monkey) is not a high enough bar to be the only thing standing in between increasingly disgruntled/radicalized/ scared / disenfranchised people and a modded Ruger Mini with no purpose other than the planned or hypothetical taking of human life, hence musing about the RPAL as a compromise to raise the bar on who has high capacity semis without all this ban nonsense.
Click to expand...

I will never understand why suicide is in these talks. That's a pure and simple mental health issue. The fact uncle bob used his 870 to take his own life when his wife left has absolutely zero to do with the shotgun. Instead it has everything to do with a hurting individual who couldn't handle it anymore. If the gun wasn't the means, it was going to be the McKay bridge or a toaster in the tub. I just do not comprehend how this is a firearms issue.

First of all stop, looking south. Jesus Canada, stop looking south. The USA has a whole host of complicating issues that cause their violent crime. And guns themselves aren't the big issue. But as Canada does we some how internalize the problems their problems.

Having said that, we do share some ground. And I get roasted on here when I say this, I am all for tougher and more stringent testing, like you I think its too easy and I would incorporate a practical range portion.

What makes no sense to me is our classification of firearms. Its completely illogical, politically driven and arbitrary.

Maybe we are more the same page than I thought...

Pondering Season 9 GIF by The Office


I swear there is an Office .gif for everything.
 
Fishbone Jones said:
The fact that game wardens are now equipped with AR-10s is enough of a reason why hunters should be armed likewise.
Click to expand...
That’s because they are expanding their powers to be the first responders in the areas where they are so they can assist in emergencies as an authority. So because they may be the dispatched cop to
Something criminal, not hunting and fishing regulation related, they have to have the kit.

That’s the direction of the agencies out west anyways. You’ll see that drift continue. I did see an article about the Yukon game wardens and how the
Rifles were referred to in the context of bear encounters. So it seems a little disorganized in the messaging.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Edward Campbell
QC Muslim 1st woman charged under 9/11 terror law for shipping wpn parts to LBN
Replies
2
Views
11K
The Bread Guy
The Bread Guy
Ex-Dragoon
Wierd But Supposedly True News Stories:
Replies
0
Views
8K
Ex-Dragoon
Ex-Dragoon
Mike Bobbitt
Direct Action: Memoirs of an Urban Guerrilla (Book review)
Replies
2
Views
13K
Mike Bobbitt
Mike Bobbitt
Back
Top