Do you agree with Canada's current firearms laws and regulations?

[Newview01]

I still think a lot of you are placing too much personification in an inanimate object. (Is that the correct grammar?)

I also see that a small number do not use a certain type of firearm are happy with the restrictions on it as it does not affect them.

I am not opposed to licensing, but licensing should be based on proficiency and safety, not book knowledge.

For those addressing suicide, that is a hopeless endeavor when it comes to firearms. All it would take is for a happy person to have one trying hour and decide to shoot themselves. Licensing as a means to prevent suicide would not stop people from shooting themselves.

[COMMSBen]

Originally Posted by NSDucknut

Short answer- No.

Long answer- NOOOOO

Only the short answer is needed as trying to discuss facts, mixed with policies & laws, sprinkled with a good dose of post impact assessment of said policies and laws and dipped in common sense doesn't get FA owners (of all shapes and forms) anywhere in the good ol' Canada.

[COMMSBen]

Originally Posted by Newview01

I still think a lot of you are placing too much personification in an inanimate object. (Is that the correct grammar?)

I also see that a small number do not use a certain type of firearm are happy with the restrictions on it as it does not affect them.

I am not opposed to licensing, but licensing should be based on proficiency and safety, not book knowledge.

For those addressing suicide, that is a hopeless endeavor when it comes to firearms. All it would take is for a happy person to have one trying hour and decide to shoot themselves. Licensing as a means to prevent suicide would not stop people from shooting themselves.

What??!

Are you trying to say that suicide by FA is NOT the only means that someone can take their own life???

/sarcasm

[COMMSBen]

Originally Posted by Twobucks

I'd like to see it easier to carry a handgun in the backcountry and I'd also like to see suppressors made legal. Otherwise I don't feel too bothered by current laws.

This right here x100.

[JustMe]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

Many people compete on a regular basis with both semi auto service rifles and hand guns , not all people go the the range " once a year".

Cat

Without a doubt there are a number that compete in IPSC competitions and the like. I would still guess there are more non competitive guys out there that have an obsession with the restricted arms. And would also guess most owners of restricted arms are generally using them in illegal circumstances. Hopefully this forum isn't sanctioning those actions of illegal use?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by JustMe

Without a doubt there are a number that compete in IPSC competitions and the like. I would still guess there are more non competitive guys out there that have an obsession with the restricted arms. And would also guess most owners of restricted arms are generally using them in illegal circumstances. Hopefully this forum isn't sanctioning those actions of illegal use?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Whatever would give you the idea that this website or the members here advocate illegal actions when it comes to firearms??
IPSC is not the only game when it comes to restricted rifles , The DCRA service rifle community is very strong nationally as well as internationally as had her so since before semi auto service rifles were restricted .
Cat

[JustMe]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

Whatever would give you the idea that this website or the members here advocate illegal actions when it comes to firearms??

IPSC is not the only game when it comes to restricted rifles , The DCRA service rifle community is very strong nationally as well as internationally as had her so since before semi auto service rifles were restricted .

Cat

Was just asking, based on a lot of the comments at times being made. I'm confident you've seen said comments. And it should be obvious that I just used IPSC as an example.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Redfrog]

Originally Posted by bobtodrick

Yes I do.
Check out Finland. Getting a drivers license there entails 20+ hours of intensive on road instruction, part of which is on a wet skid pad learning skid control.
This is in addition to 20 hours of theory.
Testing is done by government agencies, not privitised as here.
After you check that out check out motor sports in Finland. They have the highest percentage of world champion rally drivers and for their population have a very large number of F1 drivers.
Per capita their are more performance cars in Finland than here.
Yet they have one of the lowest accident rates in Europe and far lower than Canada/U.S.
Because they are properly taught/licenced.

Check out the firearms regulations in Finland.

[Diesel_wiesel]

NO its all political BS
just like this
https://youtu.be/vn2Hn85zMag

[KegRiver]

In a word, NO.

Laws impact the law abiding more then it stops criminals.

No law stops crime. Laws are only useful for prosecuting criminals.

Moreover, our gun laws were not enacted in response to crime, but rather in response to some social engineering agenda.

They had to lie by including suicide in their statistics, to make it seem as though there was a problem.

Suicide is illegal, as if that is going to make any difference, but what makes it a lie is that there is no distinction in law between suicide by gun and suicide by any other method.

In other words, it's not the gun that makes suicide illegal. Therefore it is not a gun related crime.

On the other hand, Robbery is one charge, armed robbery is another more severe charge. Because the gun is considered, making it a gun related crime.

On top of that, crimes involving hand guns was also included in the statistics used to justify bill C68 even though handguns had been highly restricted long before bill C68 was even conceived.

Some say that even gun accident statistics were included. I don't know about that but I wouldn't put it past the snakes that brought us gun control.

One thing is clear. We did not have a problem with legal guns being used in crimes, and we don't now. At least no more then we have a problem with airplanes being used for criminal activity.

If we used the same criteria to enact laws governing politicians, being a politician would become illegal.

[vcmm]

If people like the laws and rules of another country so much.
Move there.

[Canuck_hunter]

I am Ok with the PAL system as I think it gives us the credibility to say we have training and background checks and as gun owners we are the most lawful segment of society.

As licensed gun owners I see no reason for classification, mag limits or even CCW. In my mind a gun is a gun is a gun and if I can drive around with a non restricted in my car why not a handgun.