Gun amnesty (nf)

[Old Ironmaker]

This is going to get political fast. An AR-15 type weapon is nothing more than a mean looking 22. It has no range, isn't accurate and is useless in close quarters. It wouldn't stop big game.

When I was a kid it was normal to walk into someone's home that hunted to see the long guns displayed in the open. We never, and I repeat never had ammo readily available. Yes accidents do happen. The teenaged daughter of friend of the family tragically took her fathers loaded shotgun while the family was having dinner, went into her room and took her own life. After that happened we bought a gun safe and locked them all up. That was the early 70's. Something was changing and nobody really knew why. It is still the norm to see weapons readily available in American homes and vehicles. My 91 year old Uncle from southern Illinois across the border of St. Louis does not leave his rural home without his loaded Glock, never. There is always a loaded long gun by each door. I am not in a position to judge or presume my opinion is the right one. Read a St. Louis newspaper or watch the news on TV in the morning and I bet anti gun folks may just change their mind set.

[G.mech]

Many AR-15 types of semi's are a non-restricted rifle in Canada as long as the mag is pinned to hold 5 rounds (if the magazine holds 6 it's prohibited).  Most non-gun people would be surprised what is non-restricted here, take a look, all the rifles on this page on non-restricted:

https://www.firearmsoutletcanada.com/rifles/non-restricted/semi-automatic

Having the right to choose to NOT own a gun isn't satisfactory to some people....they won't rest until the the right TO own one is stripped from everybody else.   That's how their minds are programmed and they're not going to change.   

Edited March 25, 2018 by G.mech

[pics]

The new law is just window dressing.. The PM promised that he would toughen up the firearms laws without actually knowing the legislation that  was already in place. When you apply for a licence under the new law you will have to list all of your former spouses going back to your teens??.. If an ex wife from 20 years ago still hates you then you probably won't be able to get a license.. Doesn't matter if you are a perfect citizen.. 

[akaShag]

16 minutes ago, G.mech said:

AR-15's are a non-restricted rifle in Canada as long as the mag is pinned to hold 5 rounds (if the magazine holds 6 it's prohibited).  Most non-gun people would be surprised what is non-restricted here, take a look, all the rifles on this page on non-restricted:

https://www.firearmsoutletcanada.com/rifles/non-restricted/semi-automatic

Having the right to choose to NOT own a gun isn't satisfactory to some people....they won't rest until the the right TO own one is stripped from everybody else.   That's how their minds are programmed and they're not going to change.   

You are 100% WRONG about the AR-15.  That rifle, and ALL of its variants, are ALL Restricted firearms in Canada.  There are other semi-automatic rifles, including the ones on that page you reference, that are non-restricted.  There is no rhyme nor reason to what gets classified as what.  And ALL semi-autos must have mags that hold five rounds or less.

[Canuck]

To say an AR-15 is nothing more than a mean 22 is horse-$crap.  Tell that to the parents of the kids in Florida (he used an AR-15).  Tell that to the parents of the kids from Sandy Hook (killed mostly with a Bushmaster version of AR-15) or the relatives of Vegas victims (shooter had AR-15s and that was the weapon used with the bump stocks to give near automatic rifle performance.  They seem to be pretty effective at two legged big game.

You can hunt in the US with an AR-15.  You can hunt in many, maybe most states with an AR-15 with a 30 round clip.   (which you would need in order to bring down anything of any size).   I swear that the reason some states allow hunting with AR type guns is to prevent any attempt at banning ARs but not hunting weapons.  Call it a hunting weapon and it is all ok, right?

Hey Canadian's, the f-ed up lack of gun laws in the US is going to cause us problems in Canada (by overreaction to solve a problem we don't have in Canada).  What will prevent it best, is rational gun laws in the US that bring their gun death stats down in line with the rest of the civilized world.  But that won't happen.

Edited March 25, 2018 by Canuck

[G.mech]

4 minutes ago, akaShag said:

You are 100% WRONG about the AR-15.  That rifle, and ALL of its variants, are ALL Restricted firearms in Canada.  There are other semi-automatic rifles, including the ones on that page you reference, that are non-restricted.  There is no rhyme nor reason to what gets classified as what.  And ALL semi-autos must have mags that hold five rounds or less.

I stand corrected, technically maybe but many of the .223 semi's such as Bushmaster .223 semi uses all the parts and pieces so what diff?  Also, semi auto rimfires can have high cap mags.....the others just need the rivet drilled out to make them so. 

Edited March 25, 2018 by G.mech

[akaShag]

11 minutes ago, G.mech said:

I stand corrected, technically maybe but many of the .223 semi's such as Bushmaster .223 semi uses all the parts and pieces so what diff?  Also, semi auto rimfires can have high cap mags.....the others just need the rivet drilled out to make them so. 

The Bushmaster is an AR-15 variant, and it is RESTRICTED.  All of the AR-15s and all of the rifles for which the parts are interchangeable, including the Norinco stuff from China, all of these are Restricted here in Canada.  But there are lots of semi-automatic .223s that are (currently) non-restricted.  It is the 12 (9) provision in the draft C-71 tabled this past week that should be of concern to persons who own non-restricted semi-automatic firearms, since the RCMP can decide that something currently non-restricted (like the Swiss Arms Classic) is now a Prohib.

[G.mech]

3 minutes ago, akaShag said:

The Bushmaster is an AR-15 variant, and it is RESTRICTED.  All of the AR-15s and all of the rifles for which the parts are interchangeable, including the Norinco stuff from China, all of these are Restricted here in Canada.  

They are for sale as non-restricted weapons on the website I posted as well as many others......

 

https://www.firearmsoutletcanada.com/bushmaster-acr-dmr-223-rem-18-6.html#.Wrfs-S7wbIU

https://www.firearmsoutletcanada.com/kodiak-defense-wk180c-223-18-7.html#.Wrfsti7wbIU

 

Edited March 25, 2018 by G.mech

[manitoubass2]

Just now, Canuck said:

To say an AR-15 is nothing more than a mean 22 is horse-$crap.  Tell that to the parents of the kids in Florida (he used an AR-15).  Tell that to the parents of the kids from Sandy Hook (killed mostly with a Bushmaster version of AR-15) or the relatives of Vegas victims (shooter had AR-15s and that was the weapon used with the bump stocks to give near automatic rifle performance.  

You can hunt in the US with an AR-15.  You can hunt in many, maybe most states with an AR-15 with a 30 round clip.   (which you would need in order to bring down anything of any size).   I swear that the reason some states allow hunting with AR type guns is to prevent any attempt at banning ARs but not hunting weapons.  Call it a hunting weapon and it is all ok, right?

He Canadian's, the f-ed up lack of gun laws in the US is going to cause us problems in Canada (by overreaction to solve a problem we don't have in Canada).  What will prevent it best, is rational gun laws in the US that bring their gun death stats down in line with the rest of the civilized world.  But that won't happen.

It is total crap. Ever shoot an ar15? It is exactly a mean looking .22

If I'm bird hunting and have the choice, I'll just use a .22 or a 4/10 anyway over the AR.

BUT I'm not gonna be pissed at a guy hunting with an AR. WHY? BECAUSE IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ME.

bump stocks etc are a totally different aspect

Again, let's keep this Canadian. The topic is Canadian, not US gun related laws etc

[scuro2]

I don't care if you own an AR-15 or for that matter a howitzer...that is if you have followed federal laws. We are in the land where "good governance" is the norm and what the people want, We want our government to work for all people, not total freedom for everyone to do what each individual wants and screw those who have legit concerns. I would expect or National government to try to get restrictions right for each weapon. I would hope few could own a howitzer and that it would be heavily restricted. It wouldn't bother me if some totally responsible establishment had one howitzer so that you could pay to fire it. The restrictions on AR-15 sound about right. I'm open to listening to counter arguments for either weapon. It sounds like most motivated citizens could own the AR-15 if desired. The default position is that buying lethal weapons should not be easy and that restrictions need to be in place for public safety. Beyond that I don't care. The less guns the better in my opinion but if there is a huge public desire for guns that is okay too.

Back to the facts and reality...all around the world stats show that generally more gun ownership equals more gun deaths. It's more complicated then that but that general outcome holds true.

[Old Ironmaker]

2 hours ago, manitoubass2 said:

 just so happens they can also be used to protect your property and family.

 

Not legally. Unless an intruder has already taken a shot at you with his gun you are going to be sharing a cell with the same guy unless you killed him. How long would it take to unlock your safe, unlock the trigger lock, unlock the ammo box, load the weapon and use it, too late your already dead and so is your wife and children. We do not have "Stand your ground" legislation in this country. If you are assaulted with someone's fists, that's what you can defend yourself with, if he uses a pointy stick, you can use a pointy stick, you all get my point. Long gone is the day when that idiot of a man in Hamilton shot dead a teen stealing his GD tomatoes, thank goodness but there must be some middle ground. I'd rather attend my criminal trial for protecting my family than a Funeral Home grieving the loss of my family.

A 22 takes a .22 round, the AR-15 type of weapon takes a .223 round. There is not a concern able difference. Of course it can kill a person, it has. Thankfully many were injured and not killed because it was only .223. Shag and M2 may know but if I remember correctly some law enforcement and the military versions of the AR-15 type weapons have a larger caliber round. Everyone incorrectly calls a AR-15 type weapon an AR-15, it was the first of it's design but many others have copied the original, like The Bushmaster has copied it. Lawsuits have been hashed out.

Edited March 25, 2018 by Old Ironmaker

[Canuck]

To keep it

27 minutes ago, manitoubass2 said:

It is total crap. Ever shoot an ar15? It is exactly a mean looking .22

If I'm bird hunting and have the choice, I'll just use a .22 or a 4/10 anyway over the AR.

BUT I'm not gonna be pissed at a guy hunting with an AR. WHY? BECAUSE IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ME.

bump stocks etc are a totally different aspect

Again, let's keep this Canadian. The topic is Canadian, not US gun related laws etc

Agree to disagree on the 22 vs AR-15.  Have shot both.  They are different.  None of those deaths I talked about could have been done with a 22.  

Totally agree on that point about keeping this Canadian.  

As hunters and gun owners, we need to be very vigilant about not letting our politicians overreact to fix problems we don't have in Canada.  Clearly from the start of this post, it is happening.  I am a member of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters.  Hopefully it will rally the troops and get talking to politicians.  We need to get on top of this and keep the US insanity from giving the anti-gun anti-hunting urban lobby groups from taking advantage.

 

 

[manitoubass2]

Oi. It's clear you didn't read my post on page one. I addressed that issue(property defense).

And yes you definitely defend your property/family with deadly force iIF you are met with deadly force.

Obviously you don't just start shooting people unless it's necessary to protect yourself from an armed assailant

Edited March 25, 2018 by manitoubass2

[manitoubass2]

Just now, Canuck said:

To keep it

Agree to disagree on the 22 vs AR-15.  Have shot both.  They are different.  None of those deaths I talked about could have been done with a 22.  

Totally agree on that point about keeping this Canadian.  

As hunters and gun owners, we need to be very vigilant about not letting our politicians overreact to fix problems we don't have in Canada.  Clearly from the start of this post, it is happening.  I am a member of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters.  Hopefully it will rally the troops and get talking to politicians.  We need to get on top of this and keep the US insanity from giving the anti-gun anti-hunting urban lobby groups from taking advantage.

 

 

Agreed

[manitoubass2]

After re reading your post, OI you are completely wrong on the defense issue.

[Canuck]

56 minutes ago, Old Ironmaker said:

Not legally. Unless an intruder has already taken a shot at you with his gun you are going to be sharing a cell with the same guy unless you killed him. How long would it take to unlock your safe, unlock the trigger lock, unlock the ammo box, load the weapon and use it, too late your already dead and so is your wife and children. We do not have "Stand your ground" legislation in this country. If you are assaulted with someone's fists, that's what you can defend yourself with, if he uses a pointy stick, you can use a pointy stick, you all get my point. Long gone is the day when that idiot of a man in Hamilton shot dead a teen stealing his GD tomatoes, thank goodness but there must be some middle ground. I'd rather attend my criminal trial for protecting my family than a Funeral Home grieving the loss of my family.

A 22 takes a .22 round, the AR-15 type of weapon takes a .223 round. There is not a concern able difference. Of course it can kill a person, it has. Thankfully many were injured and not killed because it was only .223. Shag and M2 may know but if I remember correctly some law enforcement and the military versions of the AR-15 type weapons have a larger caliber round. Everyone incorrectly calls a AR-15 type weapon an AR-15, it was the first of it's design but many others have copied the original, like The Bushmaster has copied it. Lawsuits have been hashed out.

You are right.  They are pretty much the same. (heavy dose of sarcasm).

Caliber	Firearm	Bullet weight, g (gr)	Velocity, m/s (ft/s)	Muzzle energy, J (ft lb)
.22 Long Rifle	rifle, handgun	2.5 (38)	300 (1,000)	140 (100)
.223 Remington	rifle	3.56 (55)	990 (3,240)	1,738 (1,282)

[akaShag]

1 hour ago, G.mech said:

They are for sale as non-restricted weapons on the website I posted as well as many others......

 

https://www.firearmsoutletcanada.com/bushmaster-acr-dmr-223-rem-18-6.html#.Wrfs-S7wbIU

https://www.firearmsoutletcanada.com/kodiak-defense-wk180c-223-18-7.html#.Wrfsti7wbIU

 

Thanks for adding to my education, I did not know that the Bushmaster COMPANY has anything other than their AR-15 variants, which I think they call X-15 or similar name.  Yes you are absolutely right that they make a non-restricted version ACR.  I apologize.

 

But wait for the Horsemen to decide that the ACR is a scary looking rifle and watch the new 12(9) prohibition in action..........

[Old Ironmaker]

1 hour ago, Canuck said:

You are right.  They are pretty much the same. (heavy dose of sarcasm).

Caliber	Firearm	Bullet weight, g (gr)	Velocity, m/s (ft/s)	Muzzle energy, J (ft lb)
.22 Long Rifle	rifle, handgun	2.5 (38)	300 (1,000)	140 (100)
.223 Remington	rifle	3.56 (55)	990 (3,240)	1,738 (1,282)

OK I stand corrected. Based on those numbers a .223 is much more powerful than a .22 round. That is why we have discussion forums, to give our opinions and to educate one another. I was passing on information from those that obviously skewed the facts.

Thanks Canuck. When I'm wrong I will admit it. No matter how much it hurts to do so. As far as my opinion on "stand your ground" in Canada I stick by it. An opinion is just that.

Edited March 25, 2018 by Old Ironmaker

[Old Ironmaker]

2 hours ago, manitoubass2 said:

After re reading your post, OI you are completely wrong on the defense issue.

How? The aforementioned opinion has been made after long conversations with a few guys that passed the bar exam.

edit: Rick I read back and don't see your opinion about self defence.

Edited March 25, 2018 by Old Ironmaker

[Old Ironmaker]

I am happy to read a mature discussion that is political in nature but hasn't become a cluster jam so far. Good going guys, so far.

[aplumma]

You are on a thin line here if it gets anymore political or personal attacks it going to be locked. 

 

Art

[Canuck]

1 hour ago, Old Ironmaker said:

OK I stand corrected. Based on those numbers a .223 is much more powerful than a .22 round. That is why we have discussion forums, to give our opinions and to educate one another. I was passing on information from those that obviously skewed the facts.

Thanks Canuck. When I'm wrong I will admit it. No matter how much it hurts to do so. As far as my opinion on "stand your ground" in Canada I stick by it. An opinion is just that.

No worries.  I have heard a lot of that "fake news" about the AR-15 from the US too.  Its a purpose built assault rifle.  Ill suited for true hunting.  Probably a lot of fun to have if you are into military style toys and maybe OK for blasting at Coyotes or varmints.   It can be VERY accurate at long distances with a good scope.  Its a pretty serious weapon and as we saw in the US, it only takes one .223 round to take a life.

And I agree 100% on your view on stand your ground.  I hope I never have to follow through on it, but I would in a second if I had too.

[akaShag]

I kept my own counsel for a bit about the difference between a .22LR and a .223/5.56 NATO cartridge.  It has now been amply pointed out.  But just to add to people's knowledge here, I have a buddy whose hunting partner uses a regular rifle (not an AR-15 or any of the semi-autos) chambered for the .223 cartridge.  That guy shoots deer, moose and bear with the .223.  He uses a Barnes X monolithic copper bullet, which is about the best choice one could make for a smaller calibre hunting bullet, and so has excellent expansion and weight retention.  But at the end of the day, he shoots serious big game (and lots of it) with the .223.  It is not a plinker.

Doug

[manitoubass2]

Anyone in Canada hear what just happened in Saskatchewan?

I've been through it twice. Break and enters that is. Did I reach for a gun? No. I reached for a bat. Guess who's in jail? It isn't me.

You CAN defend your family and property with deadly force if absolutely necessary. But that has it's own set of laws as well. Like if the perp is subdued, you cannot just beat him to death. Once neutralized legally you must stop. 

See a guy steal your car? Can't do nothing legally to stop him. Its the law. If a guy enters illegally and presents a firearm, you have every right to shoot, legally. 

OI, this gets to the point I addressed earlier and perhaps you missed it or I worded it wrong. In a b&e your not likely to reach for a gun. Why? Exactly as you stated. By the time you get your gun you might already be dead. The laws in place make it highly unlikely and unpractical to try to get your gun. Thus a bat or knife or something will hopefully suffice.

I prefer the bat, because subbing the perp is my goal. I don't wanna ever deal with blood on my hands(legally or illegally)

Edited March 25, 2018 by manitoubass2

[limeyangler]

I don't get it. I own a gun, but i'm all in favour of more restrictions and hoops to jump through to have it and obtain more. Its funny how when this topic comes up you hear the same argument against more gun restrictions. Right away people start saying they won't take my guns from me.....nobody said they were taking any guns from anyone, if they do say you can't own a gun...period....that is another matter, but as it stands that is not the case, and it is pure fantasy and creating a situation that does not exist. Then you hear that it won't stop criminals....well no it won't , but that is like saying we should not have laws against anything because someone will still commit a crime.

Edited March 26, 2018 by limeyangler