The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[OldSolduer]

I don think he intended that that pro communist / heavily socialist Canadian was a perceived to be a gun owner. More someone who believes the state should have more control of you individually.

And would happily turn in their neighbor gun owners.

This is why they want gun control. Not for safety of all but control of all - they are excused of course.

 

[Lumber]

Personal opinion on where classification should be:

• Largely fine with the post C-21 definition for NR, and pre C21 definition for Prohib.
• Handguns were fine under the restricted regime and the ban was silly.
• C21 definition should have moved the no longer NR's (detachable box fed CF SA's) to restricted
• No mag limits in the restricted class
• PAL and RPAL access should be tightened similar to what the Aussie's are now doing with giving police a free-er hand to deny/revoke based on intelligence based risk assessment
• PAL licensing should require a demonstrated load, live fire, and unload of unspent ammunition of all action types.

Personal opinions on the concept of gun control:

• Regulation as decided by proper democratic processes is wholly legitimate - we need to win the majority rather than pout and get petulant
• IF proper democratic processes results in a rug pull / retroactive classification - it is the responsibility of government to implement the changes in such away that it mitigates the harm to those that made legal purchases under previous classifications
• The OIC's were an illiberal travesty
• The confiscation/ buy back is a farce

Personal opinion of the present state of the debate and near future:

• The current government sees the gun control zealots under their tent much like Peter Mackay saw the socon's under his
• I think that the failing buyback represent an opportunity to push back, but doing so would require meaningful engagement and meeting the discussion where it is
• I think that outside of the buyback (which almost anyone can see and agree with being objectively unfair) that we're damn near a state of regulatory equilibrium that either side is going to have a difficult time shifting.

I think they were expecting you to be completely anti-gun and are now unsure of how to respond.

 

[suffolkowner]

Personal opinion on where classification should be:

• Largely fine with the post C-21 definition for NR, and pre C21 definition for Prohib.
• Handguns were fine under the restricted regime and the ban was silly.
• C21 definition should have moved the no longer NR's (detachable box fed CF SA's) to restricted
• No mag limits in the restricted class
• PAL and RPAL access should be tightened similar to what the Aussie's are now doing with giving police a free-er hand to deny/revoke based on intelligence based risk assessment
• PAL licensing should require a demonstrated load, live fire, and unload of unspent ammunition of all action types.

re PAL licensing isnt that mostly covered by the firearms course?

Personal opinions on the concept of gun control:

• Regulation as decided by proper democratic processes is wholly legitimate - we need to win the majority rather than pout and get petulant
• IF proper democratic processes results in a rug pull / retroactive classification - it is the responsibility of government to implement the changes in such away that it mitigates the harm to those that made legal purchases under previous classifications
• The OIC's were an illiberal travesty
• The confiscation/ buy back is a farce

tyranny of the majority eh

Personal opinion of the present state of the debate and near future:

• The current government sees the gun control zealots under their tent much like Peter Mackay saw the socon's under his
• I think that the failing buyback represent an opportunity to push back, but doing so would require meaningful engagement and meeting the discussion where it is
• I think that outside of the buyback (which almost anyone can see and agree with being objectively unfair) that we're damn near a state of regulatory equilibrium that either side is going to have a difficult time shifting.

hopefully the Conservatives eventually get elected and undue this nonsense

 

[Halifax Tar]

I think they were expecting you to be completely anti-gun and are now unsure of how to respond.

Not really. I just wanted to know exactly what he thought, in point form. I get tired of people trying to sound smarter than they are by using long winded explanations and gobbly goop.

Just give me the BLUF. I don't need to hear how much you enjoyed your English degree.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Personal opinion on where classification should be:

• Largely fine with the post C-21 definition for NR, and pre C21 definition for Prohib.
• Handguns were fine under the restricted regime and the ban was silly.
• C21 definition should have moved the no longer NR's (detachable box fed CF SA's) to restricted
• No mag limits in the restricted class
• PAL and RPAL access should be tightened similar to what the Aussie's are now doing with giving police a free-er hand to deny/revoke based on intelligence based risk assessment
• PAL licensing should require a demonstrated load, live fire, and unload of unspent ammunition of all action types.

We wont find total harmony here... I don't agree with your points 1, 2, 3, 5,

I do agree in a more stringent coursing and I would like to see a proven practical applications of marksmanship component. I am also ok with having requalify every XX years.

Your mag limits allowance its a bit off track for your stance. But kudos.

• Personal opinions on the concept of gun control:
  • Regulation as decided by proper democratic processes is wholly legitimate - we need to win the majority rather than pout and get petulant
  • IF proper democratic processes results in a rug pull / retroactive classification - it is the responsibility of government to implement the changes in such away that it mitigates the harm to those that made legal purchases under previous classifications
  • The OIC's were an illiberal travesty
  • The confiscation/ buy back is a farce

No issues.

Personal opinion of the present state of the debate and near future:

• The current government sees the gun control zealots under their tent much like Peter Mackay saw the socon's under his
• I think that the failing buyback represent an opportunity to push back, but doing so would require meaningful engagement and meeting the discussion where it is
• I think that outside of the buyback (which almost anyone can see and agree with being objectively unfair) that we're damn near a state of regulatory equilibrium that either side is going to have a difficult time shifting.

I think your aim, no pun intended, is honorable. But I don't believe there is room for meaningful engagement with either the LPC or Poly/Anti folks. Our community representatives have continually made mature, calm, reasoned representation on our behalf that is always simply disregarded by this Gov. Their desired end state is an eventual complete ban on private firearms ownership in Canada. Its just being done in a long slow process.

PMMC has a real opportunity to heal a portion of the country, build bridges, and really cut in CPC territory if walked back the LPC Firearms stance to pre 2020. But he seems to be no better than any other member of the LPC, who sees me and my community as deplorables, and a people who need to be punished for political wrong think.

Happy @Lumber ?

 

[Eaglelord17]

I do agree in a more stringent coursing and I would like to see a proven practical applications of marksmanship component. I am also ok with having requalify every XX years.

Ownership of private property shouldn’t be tied to marksmanship or recertification.

Marksmanship means nothing, only knowing the law about where and when you can shoot matters. That should be covered in your PAL course.

Recertification is the status of your always illegal property being given a temporary exemption by your license. Your license should not expire or be forfeited unless there is a justifiable reason (such as committing a crime). It isn’t the same as say a drivers license as if your license expires your vehicle doesn’t become illegal overnight.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Ownership of private property shouldn’t be tied to marksmanship or recertification.

Marksmanship means nothing, only knowing the law about where and when you can shoot matters. That should be covered in your PAL course.

Recertification is the status of your always illegal property being given a temporary exemption by your license. Your license should not expire or be forfeited unless there is a justifiable reason (such as committing a crime). It isn’t the same as say a drivers license as if your license expires your vehicle doesn’t become illegal overnight.

That's ok, you're allowed to disagree, it's just my opinion.

 

[Deleted member 175000]

We wont find total harmony here... I don't agree with your points 1, 2, 3, 5,

Its based on the understanding that they represent a different risk profile to society- handguns via concealment, box fed semis via volume and sustained fire.

There's a tonne of double think in this and the Bondi thread acknowledging the capabilty gap then pretzling to justify why it doesnt matter. I see a Canada with jihadist's, with khalistani's, with accellerationists, with unstable sovcits with neo nazi fight clubs, a seeming increase in armed quasi organized drug activity in my area... I think there's a justifiable public interest in making it as hard as possible for those bad actors to seek "offensive parity" with law enforcement, and as easy as possible to identify and stop them. Not all legal gunowners are the upstanding citizens of army.ca, and not all legal gun owners stay the same post licensing.

I do agree in a more stringent coursing and I would like to see a proven practical applications of marksmanship component. I am also ok with having requalify every XX years.

I don't care if people can get on the paper- but the idea of them being fully licensed to operate unsupervised when they've never felt recoil, never handled live ammo, never demonstrated the ability to identify a safe arc in real time, or fed/removed more than one round each from a bolt .22 and o/u 12 is crazy to me. Heard of too many accidents.

Your mag limits allowance its a bit off track for your stance. But kudos.

If the restricted class is implemented well who cares

No issues.


I think your aim, no pun intended, is honorable

 

[Lumber]

We wont find total harmony here... I don't agree with your points 1, 2, 3, 5,

I do agree in a more stringent coursing and I would like to see a proven practical applications of marksmanship component. I am also ok with having requalify every XX years.

Your mag limits allowance its a bit off track for your stance. But kudos.



No issues.



I think your aim, no pun intended, is honorable. But I don't believe there is room for meaningful engagement with either the LPC or Poly/Anti folks. Our community representatives have continually made mature, calm, reasoned representation on our behalf that is always simply disregarded by this Gov. Their desired end state is an eventual complete ban on private firearms ownership in Canada. Its just being done in a long slow process.

PMMC has a real opportunity to heal a portion of the country, build bridges, and really cut in CPC territory if walked back the LPC Firearms stance to pre 2020. But he seems to be no better than any other member of the LPC, who sees me and my community as deplorables, and a people who need to be punished for political wrong think.

Happy @Lumber ?

Your response got more disagreement from EagleLord then IKnowNothing, so... yes!

 

[Halifax Tar]

Your response got more disagreement from EagleLord then IKnowNothing, so... yes!

I can recognize that a firearms license and a drivers license are both privileges.

I think if we made the coursing harder and included some practical applications of marksmanship, say PWT1 level, and having to requalify every XX years that may go a ways to earning some trust that we aren't just gun nut wackos.

But I am not willing to sell out my fellow firearms owners for anything, and voting LPC is doing just that IMHO.

 

[Haggis]

I think if we made the coursing harder and included some practical applications of marksmanship, say PWT1 level, and having to requalify every XX years that may go a ways to earning some trust that we aren't just gun nut wackos.

Ummm, no. That ship has sailed. Wendy Cukier is on record as saying lawful gun owners are more of a risk and deadlier because they go to the range and practice.

 

[Eaglelord17]

I can recognize that a firearms license and a drivers license are both privileges.

I think if we made the coursing harder and included some practical applications of marksmanship, say PWT1 level, and having to requalify every XX years that may go a ways to earning some trust that we aren't just gun nut wackos.

But I am not willing to sell out my fellow firearms owners for anything, and voting LPC is doing just that IMHO.

My question to you is what does PWT1 prove?

For the military it is to prove you can effectively use a firearm to a basic standard in combat. That isn’t what civilian shooting is about.

Your PAL should cover the legalities of when and where you can shoot, but proving capability well doing so means nothing. If you are shooting where and when you’re allowed whether you effectively hit a target or not doesn’t matter for a civilian.

Alternatively if your theoretical requirement to hit PWT1 existed what happens if someone fails? Do you get all your firearms taken away because of not being a good shot? How do you even build up marksmanship skills to pass in the first place without having a PAL?

One thing the LPC never expected when creating the PAL was that it resulted in much more serious gun owners than previously when it was a easier to access sport. The US is full of casual gun owners, Canada not so much thanks to how many hoops you have to jump through in the first place.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

My uncle shot his rifle once a year. Had the same box of ammo forever. He would go out, get his deer and put the empty casing back in the box. No practicing or testing. Also well before they thought about a PAL.

 

[Fabius]

I can recognize that a firearms license and a drivers license are both privileges.

I think if we made the coursing harder and included some practical applications of marksmanship, say PWT1 level, and having to requalify every XX years that may go a ways to earning some trust that we aren't just gun nut wackos.

But I am not willing to sell out my fellow firearms owners for anything, and voting LPC is doing just that IMHO.

I would suggest that a PAL and a drivers license have only similarities, they aren’t equivalents.

A drivers license authorizes you to perform the action of operating a vehicle on public roadways.
It doesn’t have any bearing on your ability to purchase any type of vehicle nor is it required to drive a vehicle on private property ie farm or ranch. An expired drivers license dies not remove the ability to own a vehicle.

The PAL is much more intrusive in that it governs a person’s ability to purchase lawful property and possess that property. It’s a requirement to continue to lawfully own that property and if it lapses technically the property can be seized by the government.

In some measure the almost unobtainable Authority to Carry License is the equivalent to the drivers license as it allows the carriage of handgun firearms on public land/in public and comes with proficiency requirements and testing.

While some countries (European) have mandatory marksmanship requirements for purchasing hunting licenses that would be a large cultural break for Canada. I think it would signal a shift from hunting as a common activity done by common people to the more aristocratic nature of hunting in Europe.

 

[Eaglelord17]

So for the record I am not against some level of gun control. My laws would look something like this.

Still 3 classes of firearms, Non-Restricted, Restricted, Prohibited.

Non-Restricted would be any long gun, provided it isn’t full auto (this includes allowing converted autos to be non-restricted, a semi-auto is a semi-auto). No magazine restrictions. Same rules to get a PAL as current (maybe a little lightening on some of the DV parts as currently someone who is say 50 which had a incident when 16 can now not own a firearm despite likely being a very different person, obviously would have to be case by case).

Restricted would be handguns, you would be required to register it. Otherwise no restrictions other than no carrying in public without a permit and only to and from a lawful reason. There shall be no ATTs though as the lawful purpose covers everything you need to cover there. Shooting on crown land, private property, etc is a lawful reason basically anywhere you can use a long gun you can use a pistol.

Prohibited would be full autos. However if a full auto is converted to semi-auto only then it becomes non-restricted. The only reason I would make the prohibited category is because the public is too wrapped up in what a firearm does and wouldn’t tolerate it otherwise. Only reasons to get a prohibited license are for collectors and gun smiths/manufacturers/dealers.

PALs would not expire and can only be removed by court order for a number of legitimate reasons (criminal conviction, threatening people, proven ties to extremists, etc.). Temporary removal can be justified for arrest, etc. but requires a court follow up shortly after for permanent removal.

Strawbuying or illegally converting to full auto is a life sentence.

I guarantee you doing a change to this system would result in no increase in crime. A reduction in paper crimes. Reduction in bureaucracy. And allow law abiding citizens to carry on with their lives in peace.

 

[Fabius]

In relation to the “capability” discussion.
Recent shooting in South Africa with 12 criminals armed with pistols and an AK47 resulted in fewer dead than in Australia.

Bekkersdal shooting: Gunmen kill nine in South Africa tavern attack

A further 10 people were injured in Bekkersdal after the perpetrators opened fire and "continued to shoot randomly".

www.bbc.com

 

[Jarnhamar]

In relation to the “capability” discussion.
Recent shooting in South Africa with 12 criminals armed with pistols and an AK47 resulted in fewer dead than in Australia.

Bekkersdal shooting: Gunmen kill nine in South Africa tavern attack

A further 10 people were injured in Bekkersdal after the perpetrators opened fire and "continued to shoot randomly".

www.bbc.com

12 armed gunmen, one with an AK47, and only 9 dead? Did the gunmen have 1 round magazines?

 

[Halifax Tar]

So for the record I am not against some level of gun control. My laws would look something like this.

Still 3 classes of firearms, Non-Restricted, Restricted, Prohibited.

Non-Restricted would be any long gun, provided it isn’t full auto (this includes allowing converted autos to be non-restricted, a semi-auto is a semi-auto). No magazine restrictions. Same rules to get a PAL as current (maybe a little lightening on some of the DV parts as currently someone who is say 50 which had a incident when 16 can now not own a firearm despite likely being a very different person, obviously would have to be case by case).

Restricted would be handguns, you would be required to register it. Otherwise no restrictions other than no carrying in public without a permit and only to and from a lawful reason. There shall be no ATTs though as the lawful purpose covers everything you need to cover there. Shooting on crown land, private property, etc is a lawful reason basically anywhere you can use a long gun you can use a pistol.

Prohibited would be full autos. However if a full auto is converted to semi-auto only then it becomes non-restricted. The only reason I would make the prohibited category is because the public is too wrapped up in what a firearm does and wouldn’t tolerate it otherwise. Only reasons to get a prohibited license are for collectors and gun smiths/manufacturers/dealers.

PALs would not expire and can only be removed by court order for a number of legitimate reasons (criminal conviction, threatening people, proven ties to extremists, etc.). Temporary removal can be justified for arrest, etc. but requires a court follow up shortly after for permanent removal.

Strawbuying or illegally converting to full auto is a life sentence.

I guarantee you doing a change to this system would result in no increase in crime. A reduction in paper crimes. Reduction in bureaucracy. And allow law abiding citizens to carry on with their lives in peace.

We're largely of the same thought.

I would allow for a provision for hunters and trappers to carry a side arm as way to put down wounded animals without having to use a CF rifle cartridge.

And of cour my marksmanship training which seems to be spectacularly popular

 

[Eaglelord17]

In relation to the “capability” discussion.
Recent shooting in South Africa with 12 criminals armed with pistols and an AK47 resulted in fewer dead than in Australia.

Bekkersdal shooting: Gunmen kill nine in South Africa tavern attack

A further 10 people were injured in Bekkersdal after the perpetrators opened fire and "continued to shoot randomly".

www.bbc.com

Here is some stats from the States on mass shootings and casualties. The basic summary is most shootings kill about 5-6 people no matter what is used. There is a slight increase in average deaths with a ‘assault weapon’ (6 vs 5) but that really isn’t that much of a difference in the grand scheme of things. Certainly not enough in my opinion to justify extra strict rules for such a rare event in the first place.

Firearm Type and Number of People Killed in Publicly Targeted Fatal Mass Shooting Events - PMC

This cohort study examines mass shootings in the US to evaluate if assault weapons were associated with a higher number of injuries and deaths.

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

What matters most isn’t the weapon it is choice of target/location and who is doing it.

Bondi for example was a ‘good’ target location. Mostly unarmed people, no cover, and police in the area only had handguns to respond with. Vagas was a ‘good’ target location as it was plunging fire into a packed stadium designed to make difficult to get in or out (to prevent people from sneaking in).

Most mass shootings take place in malls, etc, where after the first few shots people generally get to cover and it makes it hard for the gunman to track them down and gives police time to respond.

 

[Halifax Tar]

American, but an interesting watch none the less.