Major Gun Retailer, Stops Selling Assault-Style Weapons - Page 2

EZM · #31 03-02-2018, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RavYak

AR-15s and other assault style firearms have been the weapon of choice behind most of the mass murders in recent years.

If that doesn't make it obvious that these firearms need to be restricted with special licenses in order to own one I don't know what will.

The fact that a 19 year old boy that had been reported to police numerous times, had tried to commit suicide and had threatened to commit school shootings was allowed to buy one of these assault style rifles legally is sickening. The boy did the murdering but all the politicians and people that have opposed proper gun laws in the states are just as much to blame imo.

I commend Dicks and every other company taking a stance on this subject to help avoid future events like this.

I am certain you are aware that in Canada these firearms are classified as restricted and do, as a result, require special licencing/permitting etc... - so if you are suggesting the same happen in the US - I think that's a fair opinion and position to take on that. I am totally fine with having my restricted firearms legislated under the restricted rules as they are today in Canada - but, again, that's my opinion. I don't feel infringed upon - but perhaps not all of our members will agree.

As far what measures need to take place (specifically in the US) to curb this issue, in my opinion, is people control measures. Crimes are committed by people not by guns. The fact that many US states take little or no measures to ensure a high risk person acquires any kind of weapon, let alone a restricted weapon, is the real crime here.

The US needs more people control legislation - the fact that the NRA is avoiding this makes zero sense to me - all they are doing is making themselves the enemy of the growing majority and will have, at the end of the day, hurt all of us as responsible gun owners.

RavYak · #32 03-02-2018, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 58thecat

Punishment as in a long drawn out money grabbing process that will not work anyways because people kill people, always have and always will.
The cure is in the law changing how we treat our criminals.
A billion shots are fired daily in the hands of law abiding citizens...fire a few from a maniac and the world wants changes to the weapons etc...not the answer.

You can't stop these people from committing crimes but you can limit their effectiveness by making it more difficult for them to obtain dangerous firearms, explosives etc...

Your argument that people are going to try to kill people no matter what we do so might as well make it so they have easy access to dangerous weapons literally makes zero sense... Should we start selling dynamite in the streets? Automatic firearms? Grenades?

I mean "people kill people, always have and always will" so it won't change anything right???

WRONG...

hal53 · #33 03-02-2018, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RavYak

You can't stop these people from committing crimes but you can limit their effectiveness by making it more difficult for them to obtain dangerous firearms, explosives etc...

Your argument that people are going to try to kill people no matter what we do so might as well make it so they have easy access to dangerous weapons literally makes zero sense... Should we start selling dynamite in the streets? Automatic firearms? Grenades?

I mean "people kill people, always have and always will" so it won't change anything right???

WRONG...

^^^ Typical...so instead of addressing the REAL issue, lets just ban something for "everyone"...Wow......

Chuck_Wagon · #34 03-02-2018, 02:15 PM

I get the feeling you don't even own any firearms RavYak.

crazy_davey · #35 03-02-2018, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuck_Wagon

I get the feeling you don't even own any firearms RavYak.

What was your first clue?

MountainTi · #36 03-02-2018, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RavYak

You can't stop these people from committing crimes but you can limit their effectiveness by making it more difficult for them to obtain dangerous firearms, explosives etc...

Your argument that people are going to try to kill people no matter what we do so might as well make it so they have easy access to dangerous weapons literally makes zero sense... Should we start selling dynamite in the streets? Automatic firearms? Grenades?

I mean "people kill people, always have and always will" so it won't change anything right???

WRONG...

So rather than have people knowingly commit a crime by driving drunk, and possibly killing somebody, we should ban vehicles? Or alcohol?

elkhunter11 · #37 03-02-2018, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MountainTi

So rather than have people knowingly commit a crime by driving drunk, and possibly killing somebody, we should ban vehicles? Or alcohol?

The logic is the same in both cases.

Salavee · #38 03-02-2018, 02:40 PM

The big issue is that the Republic of the US has a Second Amendment that gives all of it's citizens the right to Own and Bear Arms. In Canada we do not have that right ... here, it is considered a Privilege... granted to all citizens who qualify.. no restrictions. The restrictions are placed on certain firearms at the discretion of an elected Democratic Government. As the vast majority of Canadians don't see these restrictions as unreasonable, we live with them. If we don't want to live with them we have two options .. change the Government and/or the Citizens minds or move to a more "firearm friendly" Republic. All this bitching about not having access to large capacity magazines is utterly ridiculous.They appeal only to a small minority of Firearms owners anyway. If I had to bet, I would say that the vast majority of Firearms owners in Canada are good with what we have. It's not perfect, but it is what it is. Live with it.

elkhunter11 · #39 03-02-2018, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salavee

The big issue is that the Republic of the US has a Second Amendment that gives all of it's citizens the right to Own and Bear Arms. In Canada we do not have that right ... here, it is considered a Privilege... granted to all citizens who qualify.. no restrictions. The restrictions are placed on certain firearms at the discretion of an elected Democratic Government. As the vast majority of Canadians don't see these restrictions as unreasonable, we live with them. If we don't want to live with them we have two options .. change the Government and/or the Citizens minds or move to a more "firearm friendly" Republic. All this bitching about not having access to large capacity magazines is utterly ridiculous.They appeal only to a small minority of Firearms owners anyway. If I had to bet, I would say that the vast majority of Firearms owners in Canada are good with what we have. It's not perfect, but it is what it is. Live with it.

Actually, the majority of the firearms owners that I have spoken with consider our classification system to be asinine. Most also feel that we should be allowed to fire restricted firearms on private property, not just at ranges.

TBD · #40 03-02-2018, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RavYak

How is what I proposed a punishment? It is pretty much the same as our current system minus a small extra requirement for owning a semi automatic. Add in that a person can use such a firearm in the presence of someone qualified(much like how our system works now) and hunters would never have to go without shooting semi automatic firearms. It is small changes like that which can make it much harder for a troubled individual to easily obtain a firearm while not affecting the general hunting populations.

There are laws around kayaking too. Some ridiculous in many situations such as having to carry a whistle, flash light and even a bailing bucket in a sit on top kayak even if I am the only person on a small secluded lake. Guess what though, I don't have a problem with these semi ridiculous laws because I know they do more good then harm.

Firearm owners need to start supporting logical changes to firearm laws(primarily in the USA). The mass opposition to any and all gun law changes in the USA is what brings situations like this along.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...process-second

The longer firearm owners resist any and all changes the more likely radical changes like this have of occurring. If firearm owners don't want to lose their firearm rights then start proposing and supporting the minimum laws required to help avoid situations like what is happening now.

I admit it sounds like the proper steps weren't taken in this last case but that doesn't change that there are other issues with the laws that allowed him and others to obtain dangerous firearms, bump stocks, high capacity magazines etc in the first place.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BIGLY are handguns, banning "assault" rifles will have absolutely no affect.

elkhunter11 · #41 03-02-2018, 02:57 PM

Quote:

I admit it sounds like the proper steps weren't taken in this last case but that doesn't change that there are other issues with the laws that allowed him and others to obtain dangerous firearms, bump stocks, high capacity magazines etc in the first place.

Actually the Florida school shooter did not use high capacity magazines. He used 10 round magazines, which we can use right here in Canada.

RavYak · #42 03-02-2018, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hal53

^^^ Typical...so instead of addressing the REAL issue, lets just ban something for "everyone"...Wow......

Who said ban?

I have no problems with these firearms being used in the proper environments. Heck if you guys want to propose legislation to allow you to use higher capacity magazines at gun ranges, use automatic firearms at gun ranges, set up more environments to use restricted firearms in(competitions or whatever it may be) I have no issues with that. Obviously some of those become a bit tricky as you would for example not be able to take the magazines home with you but that doesn't mean such a situation wouldn't be possible.

What I and most of the public take issue with is that you guys feel the need to be able to easily obtain these dangerous firearms without restrictions and use them wherever you want etc...

Quote:

Originally Posted by MountainTi

So rather than have people knowingly commit a crime by driving drunk, and possibly killing somebody, we should ban vehicles? Or alcohol?

Again who said ban?

Like firearms we should have laws surrounding both vehicles and alcohol. Do you disagree?

As usual many of you guys fail to listen and jump to conclusions. The only people that said anything about banning firearms are yourselves... I said to come to an agreement on regulations that make sense for both firearm and non firearm users... Some of you may have to settle with less then you hope to be allowed to do(not sure why you need an AR-15 with 30 round magazine to "hunt" with unless you are really that bad of an aim...

And since most of you choose to jump to conclusions instead of reading I will again clarify that I think our Canadian laws are pretty reasonable, it is the US that need to make significant changes...

RavYak · #43 03-02-2018, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Actually the Florida school shooter did not use high capacity magazines. He used 10 round magazines, which we can use right here in Canada.

"and others"

Sundog57 · #44 03-02-2018, 03:20 PM

According to MADD there were 1451 deaths in vehicular accidents in 2013 resulting from driver impairment (you might note that this is a criminal act)
According to StatsCan in that same year there were 131 firearms related homicides in Canada
How can the Canadian government make citizens safer from death by a criminal act?
Probably by banning certain types of firearms
That's gonna work great...

RavYak · #45 03-02-2018, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Actually, the majority of the firearms owners that I have spoken with consider our classification system to be asinine. Most also feel that we should be allowed to fire restricted firearms on private property, not just at ranges.

Our classification system is somewhat ridiculous based on what I have seen some of you guys comment on.

Trying to determine what makes one semi-automatic firearm more dangerous then another is a difficult process. As I proposed earlier in this thread perhaps all semi-automatic firearms need to have extra requirements in order to simplify the classification issue? Not saying ban them or even saying to restrict them all(...) just some extra requirements to own/use them.

As for using restricted firearms on private property that is a tricky subject. Although I would have no problem with restricted firearms being used in many private property situations I can also see how private property is often very close to a public property situation(walking along the edge of your land up against a road etc while traffic passes by). I don't think private property is a strong enough definition but there may be other requirements that could make such a situation possible(say being on public property and so far from any public area and out of sight etc).

If firearm owners got together and said sure we will live with slightly tighter rules regarding semi automatic firearms etc in trade for being able to use restricted firearms in more environments etc you guys might be able to get legislation written allowing you to do so.

The problem people like myself have isn't the use or owning of these firearms but simply the lack of restrictions in some of these cases(again especially in the US).

Salavee · #46 03-02-2018, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Actually, the majority of the firearms owners that I have spoken with consider our classification system to be asinine. Most also feel that we should be allowed to fire restricted firearms on private property, not just at ranges.

How many would that be ?... maybe a dozen. Still a far cry from what most Canadians feel. Most don't like guns , period.. and I'm certainly not one of them. I don't see the current situation any clearer or any better than anyone else. Just been looking at it longer and from a different perspective.

Chuck_Wagon · #47 03-02-2018, 03:28 PM

elkhunter11 · #48 03-02-2018, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RavYak

Our classification system is somewhat ridiculous based on what I have seen some of you guys comment on.

Trying to determine what makes one semi-automatic firearm more dangerous then another is a difficult process. As I proposed earlier in this thread perhaps all semi-automatic firearms need to have extra requirements in order to simplify the classification issue? Not saying ban them or even saying to restrict them all(...) just some extra requirements to own/use them.

As for using restricted firearms on private property that is a tricky subject. Although I would have no problem with restricted firearms being used in many private property situations I can also see how private property is often very close to a public property situation(walking along the edge of your land up against a road etc while traffic passes by). I don't think private property is a strong enough definition but there may be other requirements that could make such a situation possible(say being on public property and so far from any public area and out of sight etc).

If firearm owners got together and said sure we will live with slightly tighter rules regarding semi automatic firearms etc in trade for being able to use restricted firearms in more environments etc you guys might be able to get legislation written allowing you to do so.

The problem people like myself have isn't the use or owning of these firearms but simply the lack of restrictions in some of these cases(again especially in the US).

The problem that people like yourself have, is that you want to implement further firearms legislation without first understanding the current legislation and firearms classification system. In order to make educated suggestions about our firearms regulations and classification system, you need to have an in depth knowledge of both, not just an opinion based on comments that have been posted. As such, your suggestions are based on ignorance, not on knowledge, so I can't take your opinion seriously.

elkhunter11 · #49 03-02-2018, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salavee

How many would that be ?... maybe a dozen. Still a far cry from what most Canadians feel. Most don't like guns , period.. and I'm certainly not one of them. I don't see the current situation any clearer or any better than anyone else. Just been looking at it longer and from a different perspective.

More like several hundred people. Having served on the executives for two ranges, and having spent a great deal of time at two other ranges over a period of about 40 years. While most people are accepting of some type of licensing, and some type of storage regulations, very few think that our classification system makes any sense, including the magazine regulations. And most people feel that it's stupid to not be able to shoot their handgun or their AR-15 on their own private land.

Salavee · #50 03-02-2018, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RavYak

Who said ban?

I have no problems with these firearms being used in the proper environments. Heck if you guys want to propose legislation to allow you to use higher capacity magazines at gun ranges, use automatic firearms at gun ranges, set up more environments to use restricted firearms in(competitions or whatever it may be) I have no issues with that. Obviously some of those become a bit tricky as you would for example not be able to take the magazines home with you but that doesn't mean such a situation wouldn't be possible.

What I and most of the public take issue with is that you guys feel the need to be able to easily obtain these dangerous firearms without restrictions and use them wherever you want etc...

Again who said ban?

Like firearms we should have laws surrounding both vehicles and alcohol. Do you disagree?

As usual many of you guys fail to listen and jump to conclusions. The only people that said anything about banning firearms are yourselves... I said to come to an agreement on regulations that make sense for both firearm and non firearm users... Some of you may have to settle with less then you hope to be allowed to do(not sure why you need an AR-15 with 30 round magazine to "hunt" with unless you are really that bad of an aim...

And since most of you choose to jump to conclusions instead of reading I will again clarify that I think our Canadian laws are pretty reasonable, it is the US that need to make significant changes...

Totally agree. There appears to be a division between those who require guns to hunt and those who require guns to shoot. Lots of room for both.. and we have that, but somehow the two don't seem to mix .. especially when it comes to hunting. A .454 Casull on the hip and a 30 round AR-15 in hand just doesn't seem right in the hunting fields ,but maybe that's just me.

Chuck_Wagon · #51 03-02-2018, 03:58 PM

.308 Browning semi....GOOD!

.308 AR style semi..... BAD!

elkhunter11 · #52 03-02-2018, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salavee

Totally agree. There appears to be a division between those who require guns to hunt and those who require guns to shoot. Lots of room for both.. and we have that, but somehow the two don't seem to mix .. especially when it comes to hunting. A .454 Casull on the hip and a 30 round AR-15 in hand just doesn't seem right in the hunting fields ,but maybe that's just me.

Actually, myself and many other people have used an AR-15 to hunt coyotes, and to shoot other varmints such as ground squirrels. They actually build several variants of the AR-15 specifically for hunting varmints. And if you are shooting ground squirrels, a larger ,magazine is not at all unreasonable. As for the 454casull, if it was legal, I would carry one when bowhunting or fishing in locations where bears are commonly found.

Salavee · #53 03-02-2018, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

More like several hundred people. Having served on the executives for two ranges, and having spent a great deal of time at two other ranges over a period of about 40 years. While most people are accepting of some type of licensing, and some type of storage regulations, very few think that our classification system makes any sense, including the magazine regulations. And most people feel that it's stupid to not be able to shoot their handgun or their AR-15 on their own private land.

It looks like we have similar backgrounds and I haven't heard very much on the negative side at all. Sure, some will complain a bit but don't consider it a game-changer by any means. They carry on with hunting and shooting as much as they ever did. Those who I have spoken to recently have however, had a slight change in sentiment and it wasn't complaining about not being able to shoot up the countryside with AR's and the like, even on private property.

DiabeticKripple · #54 03-02-2018, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RavYak

Our classification system is somewhat ridiculous based on what I have seen some of you guys comment on.

Trying to determine what makes one semi-automatic firearm more dangerous then another is a difficult process. As I proposed earlier in this thread perhaps all semi-automatic firearms need to have extra requirements in order to simplify the classification issue? Not saying ban them or even saying to restrict them all(...) just some extra requirements to own/use them.

As for using restricted firearms on private property that is a tricky subject. Although I would have no problem with restricted firearms being used in many private property situations I can also see how private property is often very close to a public property situation(walking along the edge of your land up against a road etc while traffic passes by). I don't think private property is a strong enough definition but there may be other requirements that could make such a situation possible(say being on public property and so far from any public area and out of sight etc).

If firearm owners got together and said sure we will live with slightly tighter rules regarding semi automatic firearms etc in trade for being able to use restricted firearms in more environments etc you guys might be able to get legislation written allowing you to do so.

The problem people like myself have isn't the use or owning of these firearms but simply the lack of restrictions in some of these cases(again especially in the US).

What’s the difference between discharging a non-restricted on private property, and a restricted? Other than one being legal, and the other not?

Salavee · #55 03-02-2018, 04:18 PM

One is restricted to use in a controlled environment and the other is not.

RavYak · #56 03-02-2018, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DiabeticKripple

What’s the difference between discharging a non-restricted on private property, and a restricted? Other than one being legal, and the other not?

If you are close to a road, say hunting gophers, it looks a lot different to people passing by(who likely have no knowledge of firearms) if you are carrying a run of the mill 22, an AR-15 or a pistol...

Private property isn't a strict enough definition to allow for restricted firearm usage but as I said before with some extra requirements perhaps restricted firearm use doesn't need to be limited only to gun ranges.

The problem is wording the laws in a way that they are effective and don't get abused. Limiting restricted firearm use to gun ranges is the easy way to avoid this hence why the law was likely written as such.

elkhunter11 · #57 03-02-2018, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RavYak

If you are close to a road, say hunting gophers, it looks a lot different to people passing by(who likely have no knowledge of firearms) if you are carrying a run of the mill 22, an AR-15 or a pistol...

Private property isn't a strict enough definition to allow for restricted firearm usage but as I said before with some extra requirements perhaps restricted firearm use doesn't need to be limited only to gun ranges.

The problem is wording the laws in a way that they are effective and don't get abused. Limiting restricted firearm use to gun ranges is the easy way to avoid this hence why the law was likely written as such.

What difference does it make if someone driving by doesn't know what type of firearm you are shooting? Why would it matter if you were using a 22 pistol or a 22 rifle to shoot ground squirrels? Out in a field shooting ground squirrels, neither presents more of a risk to the public than the other. Why would it matter if you were shooting an AR-15 or a bolt action 223, the risk to the public in a rural field would be no different.
This is supposed to be about safety, and risk to the public, not about how it looks to someone passing by that is clueless about firearms.

RavYak · #58 03-02-2018, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

This is supposed to be about safety, and risk to the public, not about how it looks to someone passing by that is clueless about firearms.

Wrong again. It is called perceived safety. People don't have to be at actual risk in order to think they are.

A similar analogy would be walking around the city holding a fillet knife. It is not a danger to anyone but it is illegal because others may perceive it as being dangerous.

Salavee · #59 03-02-2018, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

What difference does it make if someone driving by doesn't know what type of firearm you are shooting? Why would it matter if you were using a 22 pistol or a 22 rifle to shoot ground squirrels? Out in a field shooting ground squirrels, neither presents more of a risk to the public than the other. Why would it matter if you were shooting an AR-15 or a bolt action 223, the risk to the public in a rural field would be no different.
This is supposed to be about safety, and risk to the public, not about how it looks to someone passing by that is clueless about firearms.

What's wrong with shooting G Squirrels with anything other than a restricted firearm ?... like a 10/22. At least the public doesn't view them as something that belongs in Afghanistan. In todays world that type of Tactical related stuff goes over like a turd in a punchbowl. Nothing like seeing a couple of guys on or off the road, in full camo or otherwise, packing AR Military style rifles. That's the part that a lot of us don't grasp. We see it our way. The older generation public sees an image that doesn't relate to any type of Game hunting that they have ever seen in their lives before. Wannabe Tacticool, they will see it that way and react accordingly, especially after a few school shootings with the same type of Firearm .. It's all about the Granny scarin' image.. and clueless or not, the Granny types ,regardless how much they may know about firearms, have the numbers both in the general population and in the political arenas and sadly, they have a running start on getting these "weapons" out of their sight. Maybe we should consider leaving well enough alone.

elkhunter11 · #60 03-02-2018, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RavYak

Wrong again. It is called perceived safety. People don't have to be at actual risk in order to think they are.

A similar analogy would be walking around the city holding a fillet knife. It is not a danger to anyone but it is illegal because others may perceive it as being dangerous.

So what is next, making it illegal to have a firearm on any public land or on any private land within sight of a roadway , because someone with a firearms phobia might see the firearm and feel threatened?