How do you Feel About Handgun Restrictions?

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

yeah, can live with amalgamating non-restricted and restricted classifications...

Though I would say we still need a "Prohibited" category. Go ahead and call me a PETA-loving pinko pacifist commie-sympathizing freedom-hater (heck, a couple here already do LOL), but I'm not ready to have anyone with a PAL filling the basement with .50cal machine guns, uzi's, explosive and armour-piercing ordinance, etc.

think that semi auto AR type and bolt action tact-type rifles are acomplete and utter eysore, but that being said i will never advocate makingthem restrictd or prohibited or whatever.

A person's preferance in fire arms is their own , and they should not push it on others.
besides, love giving my semi auto duck hunting buddies the gears when I'm packin' my SXS!
Cat

[madtrapper1381]

Just been reading lots of post here.And there are some very good ones.Just to let you know that this year TRAPPERS are aloud to pack a .22 pistel on them when on their trapline.We do have to still abide by all the gun laws.But i think its a step in the right direction.

[guywiththemule]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

yeah, can live with amalgamating non-restricted and restricted classifications...

Though I would say we still need a "Prohibited" category. Go ahead and call me a PETA-loving pinko pacifist commie-sympathizing freedom-hater (heck, a couple here already do LOL), but I'm not ready to have anyone with a PAL filling the basement with .50cal machine guns, uzi's, explosive and armour-piercing ordinance, etc.

You actually think a law or prohibition will stop any person bent on destruction and mayham ??? If you believe this you need some serious help my liberal friend.

[Rugerlover]

Originally Posted by guywiththemule

You actually think a law or prohibition will stop any person bent on destruction and mayham ??? If you believe this you need some serious help my liberal friend.

That's what I was trying to convey. If you are too dangerous or a risk to own (for example) a .300 win mag that can disintegrate a cinder block or a 10 gauge which can shoot slugs that are capable of blasting through walls. What more damage can a 9mm UZI do, is it because it is automatic and the average person visualizes an isolated chance of a maniac losing control?
Plz........

If he has doubts on an "UZI" makes no sense to me why has no doubts for high powered rifles and shotguns.

[Rugerlover]

Originally Posted by uglyelk

Oki no need for name calling if we disagree.

I do disagree but better men than I gave their lives so we would have the freedom to speak in this country. I respect your freedom to come to the wrong conclusions and express them on this public forum.

We can go through life living like an ostrich if we choose. The law will keep you safe? Banishment will keep you safe? We all have the right bury our faces in the sand and wave our butts about in the breeze. We can even believe that no one will sodomize our unprotected arse because it's not legal to do so with our permission! But then again Oki like it or not people do break the law.

Believing that the prohibited class of weapons will keep you safe makes about sense as believing someone can not be raped because it’s against the law.

Laws can not and do not stop wrongful acts; they only provide a platform for punishment after the fact!

Some of us Canadians presently have prohibited class on our PAL so who knows what may be in a basement near you Oki. Then again some folks just break the law, might be an unregistered howitzer pointed at your house!

I don’t believe there is a limit on how much gun powder may be stored for reloading purposes in the home. I suspect the neighbour’s capacity for storing diesel fuel and fertilizer together in front of your house is probably limited by the size of his slip tank and box on his truck. Surprising you’ve managed to live so long with all this evil potential swirling about.

Your post very much reminds me of the first gun amnesty offered in this country back in the early seventies. A biker, a yank vet, I knew turned in an M60 and few boxes of belted ammo and a few other goodies. The RCMP were shocked and asked lots of questions, the dude just pointed to the poster (no questions asked). He eventually told them I’m just happy to get rid of this stuff.

I talked to him about it later and he told me....I’ve got one more...just thought they wouldn’t come looking for it if they thought I’d turned everything in.

Hard to say what’s out there Oki! Heck anyone with half a clue could turn an sks into a machine gun with a shim on the sear. It’s not rocket science.

Bottom line is anyone willing to do evil and commit crime will. All these rules do is restrict the honest folks.

The government invested ten’s of thousands of dollars teaching many of us to operate FN’s and SMG’s etc. What’s the harm if we take one to the range. (other than the dent the wallet takes when you depress the trigger)

Having the firearms and not being permitted to shoot them is BS.

Well said. I think Okotokian is way out of line. Who knows??
maybe he should turn his firearms in. Sounds to me like they make him uncomfortable.

[Rugerlover]

Originally Posted by Boberama

Seems to me a 50 caliber semi-automatic with a disintegrating link belt which is unregistered and fires as fast and as much as you can make it go would be pretty dangerous in the hands of a crazy man.

But they prohibit a Benelli M3.

I think the key word "would be" is of great importance here. It keeps things in perspective.
I'd imagine the Police would pay more attention to the psych and storage of an individual with such type prohibited guns in his possession.
More so than the Unrestricted class.
I would even bet on yearly visits("safety checks") by them.

[SkytopBrewster]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

think that semi auto AR type and bolt action tact-type rifles are acomplete and utter eysore, but that being said i will never advocate makingthem restrictd or prohibited or whatever.

A person's preferance in fire arms is their own , and they should not push it on others.
besides, love giving my semi auto duck hunting buddies the gears when I'm packin' my SXS!
Cat

I also like old firearms etc, no expert on them like you but I have to disagree on the AR, My national match A2 is the most beautiful thing in the cabinet, next would be my Henry Big Boy

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by SkytopBrewster

I also like old firearms etc, no expert on them like you but I have to disagree on the AR, My national match A2 is the most beautiful thing in the cabinet, next would be my Henry Big Boy

Well thee ya go!
Cat

[1911itis]

Some very interesting opinions have been shared here. For myself, having lived in Canada for 24 years, and now after having lived in the U.S. for 13 years, all I can say is that the firearm freedoms I enjoy here as guaranteed by the US Constitution are precious. The handgun restrictions (not to mention the long gun registration) in Canada are simply ridiculous. Only the honest man suffers.

[encalibur]

Restricting handgun ownership will not stop crooks from owning one but it will stop the less determined/involved/well funded/"everyday" type punks from waving one around. Unfortunate that this takes away from legit use and enjoyment of a weapon like this...

my folks stopped hiking/biking in the bushes in the fall after more than a few close encounters with black bear cubs and mothers and the odd timber wolf and cougar. Not that they'd have wild game for dinner every other night if handguns were allowed, but the peace of mind when enjoying their backyard would be nice.

That said, as a very recent firearm hobbyist (if i can call myself that yet), my vote would still be to keep the restricted/prohibited the way they stand. There are no legit reasons for everyday citizens to use automatic weapons at all or handguns in cities, IMO.

[Tactical Lever]

Originally Posted by encalibur

Restricting handgun ownership will not stop crooks from owning one but it will stop the less determined/involved/well funded/"everyday" type punks from waving one around. Unfortunate that this takes away from legit use and enjoyment of a weapon like this...

my folks stopped hiking/biking in the bushes in the fall after more than a few close encounters with black bear cubs and mothers and the odd timber wolf and cougar. Not that they'd have wild game for dinner every other night if handguns were allowed, but the peace of mind when enjoying their backyard would be nice.

That said, as a very recent firearm hobbyist (if i can call myself that yet), my vote would still be to keep the restricted/prohibited the way they stand. There are no legit reasons for everyday citizens to use automatic weapons at all or handguns in cities, IMO.

Well I guess it's safe to say that you've never been raped at knife point, then.

Or been carjacked.

Been attacked by multiple crackheads who don't realize they're supposed to be dead.

Or as the guy at the ATM had happen to him; forced down, wallet emptied and code stolen so they could withdraw more. One of them was armed with a pistol; carrying deadly force and wielding it to get his way. Still out there, among friends and relatives looking for a next victim.

The whole classification is a sham, a knee jerk response by a group of hippies (not that I have ought against hippies in general) who believe the drug addled, evil, twisted scum of the sort that murdered and raped little Nina Courtepat have any sort of regard for human life and can be reasoned with.

In a nutshell, no. They trust me with all kinds of dangerous things, but just part of the time and in certain places.... ok, sure.

[1911itis]

encalibur wrote - "That said, as a very recent firearm hobbyist (if i can call myself that yet), my vote would still be to keep the restricted/prohibited the way they stand. There are no legit reasons for everyday citizens to use automatic weapons at all or handguns in cities, IMO."

Hmmm, is that because bad guys don't live in cities so there never would be a need to defend oneself in a city?

[elkhunter11]

There are no legit reasons for everyday citizens to use automatic weapons at all or handguns in cities, IMO.

The current laws don't just prevent us from using handguns in cities, they prevent us from legally using them anywhere but at an approved range. That prevents a person from legally carrying a handgun in the wilderness, or from target shooting on his private property, even if it is a remote farm.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by uglyelk

We can go through life living like an ostrich if we choose. The law will keep you safe? Banishment will keep you safe? We all have the right bury our faces in the sand and wave our butts about in the breeze. We can even believe that no one will sodomize our unprotected arse because it's not legal to do so with our permission! But then again Oki like it or not people do break the law.

But UE, I haven't heard of a lot of crimes in Canada committed with the 50 cal. machineguns I referenced. I prefer to think that is because as a prohibited weapon, there are just very few of them around. You prefer to believe that any break and enter artist or mugger could have one if he wished but that the criminals we have are just too honest and ethical to want one...

Now which do you think is REALLY more likely?

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by guywiththemule

You actually think a law or prohibition will stop any person bent on destruction and mayham ??? If you believe this you need some serious help my liberal friend.

Uh, see comment above, and you tell me why we aren't having a spree of crimes committed in theis country with machine guns and bazookas. From the arguments you guys put forward any garden variety criminal can get any weapons he wants in an instant. If that is the case, where are they all? Could they be.... gasp... perhaps difficult to obtain?

Sorry guys, not buying tha argument that prohibiting weapons makes not a bit of difference to their proliferation. You don't have any facts to back it up.

[landowner]

Can you carry and target practice with a handgun on your own land ?

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by landowner

Can you carry and target practice with a handgun on your own land ?

Nope, unfortunately.

[elkhunter11]

But UE, I haven't heard of a lot of crimes in Canada committed with the 50 cal. machineguns I referenced. I prefer to think that is because as a prohibited weapon,

So just how many crimes have you heard of that were committed with 50 cal non restricted rifles?

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

So just how many crimes have you heard of that were committed with 50 cal non restricted rifles?

None. So what's the point? A bolt action rifle isn't exactly a really sought after weapon for a criminal.

[elkhunter11]

None. So what's the point? A bolt action rifle isn't exactly a really sought after weapon for a criminal.

Could it also be that the 50 cal rifles are not sought after by criminals, because they are very large and heavy, which makes them difficult to conceal or to carry around. A 50 caliber machine gun would be even larger and heavier, so it would be even more impractical for criminals to carry or conceal them. As far as being prohibited goes, criminals do use prohibited weapons, so the law is not stopping that.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Could it also be that the 50 cal rifles are not sought after by criminals, because they are very large and heavy, which makes them difficult to conceal or to carry around. A 50 caliber machine gun would be even larger and heavier, so it would be even more impractical for criminals to carry or conceal them. As far as being prohibited goes, criminals do use prohibited weapons, so the law is not stopping that.

Some people drink and drive, so drinking and driving laws are obviously having zero effect and should be gotten rid of. That's the essence of your argument.

As I pointed out, if you were right EVERY criminal would have fully automatic weapons. Why don't they? It's clear that prohibition has some impact. They just aren't that easy to get.

[elkhunter11]

Some people drink and drive, so drinking and driving laws are obviously having zero effect and should be gotten rid of. That's the essence of your argument.

The essence of my argument is although criminals do use prohibited weapons,as in fully automatic weapons, they don't choose 50 caliber machine guns. You claim that it is because they are prohibited, but obviously being prohibited isn't enough to deter criminals from using smaller ,lighter automatic weapons. On the other hand, my theory is that criminals avoid 50 caliber machine guns, because the size and weight makes them too impractical for their uses.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

Some people drink and drive, so drinking and driving laws are obviously having zero effect and should be gotten rid of. That's the essence of your argument.

As I pointed out, if you were right EVERY criminal would have fully automatic weapons. Why don't they? It's clear that prohibition has some impact. They just aren't that easy to get.

Why would a criminal want a fully automatic weapon (well other than for the reasons that every red blooded male wants one...they are cool)? From a criminally pragmatic point of view they are cumbersome to conceal in the pocket of baggy pants. They are expensive beasts to feed. A drive by would cost over 100 bucks in ammo using an auto, while you could complete a drive by for a fairly cheap 5 bucks or so using a 38 special or a 9mm. SO, you can see that prohibition is not the sole reason for criminals largely abstaining from the use of auto's.

[elkhunter11]

They are expensive beasts to feed. A drive by would cost over 100 bucks in ammo using an auto, while you could complete a drive by for a fairly cheap 5 bucks or so using a 38 special or a 9mm.

Given the cost of 50 caliber ammunition, how much suspicion would you raise, if you walked in to a gun store and asked for 1000 rounds to feed your 50 cal machine gun?

As for the suicidal nut cases, can you imagine someone like Mac Lepine trying to sneak a 50 cal machine gun into a school.

[GeoTrekr]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

Some people drink and drive, so drinking and driving laws are obviously having zero effect and should be gotten rid of. That's the essence of your argument.

No, not really; drinking and driving laws target those who drink and drive; the prohibition laws target those lawful individuals who choose to abide by the law and not obtain one...

[Pudelpointer]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

Uh, see comment above, and you tell me why we aren't having a spree of crimes committed in theis country with machine guns and bazookas. From the arguments you guys put forward any garden variety criminal can get any weapons he wants in an instant. If that is the case, where are they all? Could they be.... gasp... perhaps difficult to obtain?

Oki, are we having a spree of crimes bein committed with non-restricted rifles? With handguns? With knives? Truth is, we don't have many "crime sprees" in this country (except in Winnipeg apparently). Why is that? Maybe because the extreme majority of Canadians can resist the urge to become homicidal psychopaths when in possession of any sort of "weapon", from firearms to rocks.

[Unregistered user]

I'm surprised there are so many people against freer gun laws on this site, so sad. Banning objects only regulates and restricts the law abiding. Bad guys will do bad things with or without a piece of paper. Now if we keep criminals in the jug longer they won't be able to commit crimes. I don't care for the argument that longer sentencing is not a deterrent to criminal behaviour just scoop up the scum and leave the good people alone, but then gun control has never been about crime control and none of us could be so naiive to think it was.

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by encalibur

Restricting handgun ownership will not stop crooks from owning one but it will stop the less determined/involved/well funded/"everyday" type punks from waving one around. Unfortunate that this takes away from legit use and enjoyment of a weapon like this...

my folks stopped hiking/biking in the bushes in the fall after more than a few close encounters with black bear cubs and mothers and the odd timber wolf and cougar. Not that they'd have wild game for dinner every other night if handguns were allowed, but the peace of mind when enjoying their backyard would be nice.

That said, as a very recent firearm hobbyist (if i can call myself that yet), my vote would still be to keep the restricted/prohibited the way they stand. There are no legit reasons for everyday citizens to use automatic weapons at all or handguns in cities, IMO.

New firearms hobbyist's should be restricted to break action .22 rimfires. If that makes sense to you so does your limiting restrictions on other firearms. What part of a firearm is a firearm do you not get.

[guywiththemule]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

Uh, see comment above, and you tell me why we aren't having a spree of crimes committed in theis country with machine guns and bazookas. From the arguments you guys put forward any garden variety criminal can get any weapons he wants in an instant. If that is the case, where are they all? Could they be.... gasp... perhaps difficult to obtain?

Sorry guys, not buying tha argument that prohibiting weapons makes not a bit of difference to their proliferation. You don't have any facts to back it up.

If you think any "gun" or weapon is difficult to obtain in modern Alberta, you sir, have lived a very sheltered life and you obviously want to continue to live in your own little make-believe world that your government creates for you. Criminals could care less about your rules and they do not know or associate with the same people that you do. You need to do some in- depth research on the way a criminal or anti-social human being`s mind works. It`s called reality my friend. PS Pot is also prohibited "right"

[encalibur]

@Tactical Lever: At the risk of sound like a "hippie" again, i still don't see how opening the restriction would help the rape, robbery, etc victims. It would just make it easier for lesser lowlifes to get a gun, or prompt them them to shoot first before jumping somebody with a hand in their jacket or purse.

@hillbillyreefer: i guess the intended use or purpose of a firearm is debatable since you can point the barrel at anything, but a firearm that is easily concealable and is the firearm of choice for criminals is definitely not the same as the .22 or .17 i'm about to purchase (very excited at my eventual first rifle by the way )

I suppose i need to be convinced that not restricting handguns will not = more handguns in the hands of those that shouldn't have guns or more crime with handguns. Aren't there hard stats available? (honest question).

IMO the biggest hurdle is not those of us that browse the forum, it's the population of urbanites that don't see a use for guns period, visit go for day trip to a national once a year and think they appreciate wildlife and the environment.