Y'all are f'ked

[CdnFox]

56 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

"Hunting rifles and shotguns are neither restricted nor prohibited,

Many many hunting rifles and shotguns are restricted or prohibited.

The AR-15 is a popular hunting platform in the us. Its restricted here (prohib'd now?)

There are plenty of other examples. I literally just proved you wrong it was that easy  

[NAME REMOVED]

32 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

 

The AR-15 is a popular hunting platform in the us. Its restricted here (prohib'd now?)

 

No, the AR-15 is a lousy rifle to hunt big game. 

AR-15 should only be used by law enforcement agencies, or the military.

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

No, the AR-15 is a lousy rifle to hunt big game. 

 

Well it's not actually, it's an excellent rifle for Sitka deer in British Columbia for example

But people hunt a lot more things than big game. Everything from gophers to wolves are excellent examples of where a aR platform would really shine. And if you move to blackout cartridges for that platform then hunting deer and other big game is perfectly acceptable. They make a wide range of excellence hunting bullets in 223. I would remind you that 223 started out as a hunting cartridge, not the military cartridge which is a tiny bit different.

So you are 100% wrong.

 

Here's a remminton 700 (the iconic hunting rifle) chambered in 223.  Soooo why would they make a hunting gun chambered in that cartridge if it wasn't good for hunting?

I own a single shot 223 for hunting. 

Edited December 13, 2024 by CdnFox

[Venandi]

7 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

Hunting rifles and shotguns are neither restricted nor prohibited

We've just established the nature and depth of the problem. This is what started, and currently sustains our journey to Crazy Island.

I fear the conservatives aren't conservative enough to stomp this into the ground... but here's hoping.

7 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

People who have committed certain serious crimes are not eligible for an acquisition certificate to possess any firearm.

How's that working out for ya with the criminal elements  in Toronto? Those lifetime possession bans cut a mean rug too by the looks of things.  

- Look at the body language here and imagine being caught dismounted...take a moment and just insert yourself into this video on foot.

Head down, ears back... this girl means business

Note the cub on the left side of the trail just as mom comes into view, easy to miss eh? That's just how fast things can happen. Bluffs tend to be head up, ears up and have more prance to them... but I wouldn't count on it, maybe only huffy puffy liberal bears do that. 

- Sure ya wouldn't like to borrow that semi automatic now?

So:

How about some moose hunting

Ya only get one shot here Herb, after all, you're not a real hunter if you need more than that... right?

How fast can ya swim Herb? In fairness, they may have been liberal boaters harassing a Republican bear, who knows... but ya get the point. And if you don't that's OK too as long as you're willing to come along. I don't need to outrun the bear, just you. 

Good luck Herb...

 

Edited December 13, 2024 by Venandi

[Army Guy]

13 hours ago, Aristides said:

Again, we use knives for hundreds of things that have nothing to do with killing. You can kill someone with a hammer, screwdriver or a hundred other every day articles that aren't used for killing. The comparison is stupid.

It is stupid, but that is how the liberals framed this whole ban, to protect Canadians...while looking the other way on the second largest and at times the Largest tool used to kill others in this country... And then they completely missed the mark by attacking legal gun owners instead of illegal guns flowing across the border...which account for 95% or more of all our firearm violent crimes...So which is it are we protecting Canadians or or is this just political to gain votes..This is all political and most Canadians don't care or are not smart enough to see through this political stunt...

[Army Guy]

11 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

No, the AR-15 is a lousy rifle to hunt big game. 

AR-15 should only be used by law enforcement agencies, or the military.

Nobody hunts big game with an AR,  most gun owners have a few firearms....to fit each of their hunting needs....AR  comes in handy with small game like coyotes, wolfs, racoons, beavers...it is also used in sport shooting due to ammo being cheaper, or just going to the range to plink....That's the problem with anti gun people,  just the looks scare you...

[Army Guy]

17 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

You tell me, Private Pyle.

I would suggest you read the source it's got pictures and everything....the reason i 'm telling you this is because it sounds like you don't know what your talking about...

 

In Canada, firearms are defined by the Criminal Code:

firearm means a barrelled weapon from which any shot, bullet, or other projectile can be discharged and that is capable of causing serious bodily injury or death to a person, and includes any frame or receiver of such a barrelled weapon and anything that can be adapted for use as a firearm; (arme à feu)[79]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm

 

[Aristides]

4 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Nobody hunts big game with an AR,  most gun owners have a few firearms....to fit each of their hunting needs....AR  comes in handy with small game like coyotes, wolfs, racoons, beavers...it is also used in sport shooting due to ammo being cheaper, or just going to the range to plink....That's the problem with anti gun people,  just the looks scare you...

I think that it is the weapon of choice for American mass murderers is what scares them

[NAME REMOVED]

4 minutes ago, Aristides said:

I think that it is the weapon of choice for American mass murderers is what scares them

^This.

There is no legitimate reasons for civilians to own semi automatic weapons. Thankfully, we have sane guns control laws, and no matter how hard the MAGA hyenas yell, we are not bringing our gun laws in tune with the US system. If people here want to own AR-15, move to America.

[Aristides]

It was also the weapon used to kill 51 people and wound 89 others in the Christchurch NZ Mosque shooting.

Edited December 13, 2024 by Aristides

[CdnFox]

36 minutes ago, Aristides said:

I think that it is the weapon of choice for American mass murderers is what scares them

You've got it backwards. Because it scares them it's the weapon of choice for American Mass murderers.

These people are looking for headlines. They're looking for splash and coverage. And everybody knows you nothing gets media coverage like a firearm and an AR-15 specifically. They even use it when it's not the best choice.

Some news organizations have taken a policy where they will not mention the shooter's name in a mass casualty event so to rob him of the notoriety. Interestingly there is some reason to believe this may be somewhat effective. Probably a lot more effective than actually banning the tool or pretending that they all choose the same gun because they all rationally evaluate the options and conclude that's the best tool for the job or something. 

[CdnFox]

38 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

^This.

There is no legitimate reasons for civilians to own semi automatic weapons. 

Of course there is. If you're hunting wolves a second fast follow-up shot is ideal. Or foxes, or gophers, or a bunch of other animals. Semi autos are very popular for duck and goose hunting, and have  been for well over 100 years now.  I own one of the first successful models of hunting semi auto shotguns and it was made in the 50's, my dad used it to bag game for the family and passed it on to me.

There are many many semi-automatic hunting rifles and hunting shotguns. Like a LOT of them. And before that levers and pumps were popular to get that fast follow up shot when you need it. 

You know absolutely nothing about what you're talking about and yet you're speaking as if you're some sort of authority. You don't own guns, you don't hunt, you're a drunk loser living in your mother's basement and you're pretending like you know anything about this.

Maybe you should be asking questions and learning from people who are experts and then form your opinions after that. But of course that doesn't suit your echo chamber

Semi-automatic rifles have been used in hunting since the first semi-automatic rifles were invented. They are perfectly legitimate hunting tools. 223, which can be shot out of any gun chambered for 5.56 NATO, is a popular and effective hunting cartridge for foxes, wolves, sitka deer, rabbits, gophers, and other animals. It is quite common in America to hunt hogs with an AR-15 chambered in 300 Blackout.

Sorry to burst your bubble

[PIK]

17 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Well it's not actually, it's an excellent rifle for Sitka deer in British Columbia for example

But people hunt a lot more things than big game. Everything from gophers to wolves are excellent examples of where a aR platform would really shine. And if you move to blackout cartridges for that platform then hunting deer and other big game is perfectly acceptable. They make a wide range of excellence hunting bullets in 223. I would remind you that 223 started out as a hunting cartridge, not the military cartridge which is a tiny bit different.

So you are 100% wrong.

 

Here's a remminton 700 (the iconic hunting rifle) chambered in 223.  Soooo why would they make a hunting gun chambered in that cartridge if it wasn't good for hunting?

I own a single shot 223 for hunting. 

I don't agree with a .223 for whitetail. It's on the light side. You need the perfect set up shot.You lose options with it. And If you do drop deer with one shot, then you know what you are doing.

[I am Groot]

On 12/5/2024 at 10:09 PM, gatomontes99 said:

You are fùçķèd

And you're a virgin and will probably remain one.

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

I think that it is the weapon of choice for American mass murderers is what scares them

And yet here in Canada there are thousands of AR-15 platforms, and only once has there been an incident of a legal fun owner using a AR-15 during a shootout with police....It was because of this instant that these firearms were prohibit or restricted...There are still thousands upon thousands of AR-15 platforms in Canada today...and very few involved in crimes....and a few more used by criminals....enough for a outright ban, i don't think so...

Quote

In 1982, Saskatoon police shot 18-year-old hostage-taker Richard Landrie after a lengthy standoff. Landrie was dressed in battle fatigues and armed with an AR-15. He fired 50 rounds during the standoff, shooting off one of his hostage’s fingers.

Very few have been used by criminals in crimes....

Media reports also indicate that AR-15s have been seized in several drug raids, taken from alleged bank robbers in British Columbia, involved in a 2009 murder and employed in the 2004 drive-by shooting of Louise Russo in suburban Toronto as she waited in line to buy a sandwich for her daughter.

It is, but in the US 30 round mags are legal, here in Canada anything over 5 rounds is prohibited and having one can risk your entire gun collection for life without compensation of any type........with a couple of exceptions M-1 Garand in 30.06 holds 8 rounds in a internal magazine well , which i use for hunting, there is one more but i'm not sure what it is...

[Army Guy]

2 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

^This.

There is no legitimate reasons for civilians to own semi automatic weapons. Thankfully, we have sane guns control laws, and no matter how hard the MAGA hyenas yell, we are not bringing our gun laws in tune with the US system. If people here want to own AR-15, move to America.

They are not looking to bring our system the same as the US, legal gun owners are happy with the laws we had before the liberals took to panicking ....some of the tightest in the globe....Our stats say it all it is a historical record of who is using what firearm to legally shoot at rifle ranges, sport shooting, plinking etc....they also target what fire arms are being used by criminals...Again not sure why some law abiding Canadian pisses you off, just becasue they own a few firearms...that are so tightly controlled that each owner has a criminal background check everyday of the year....and any serious failures in mental health checks will have you collection seized until cleared by a mental health specialist that takes years......Using your firearms for any reason outside of those allowed and your entire collection will be seized...use them to protect you and your family, will see you land in jail until your proven innocent, your guns seized, and that could take years to do...

You do know there are legal gun owners that are Liberal/ NDP right...you seem to think you can't be a conservative without owning a gun...lots of conservatives don't own guns, there are already thousand supon thousands of AR-15 owners, waiting for the conservatives to get back in... 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, PIK said:

I don't agree with a .223 for whitetail.

It wouldn't be my favorite cartridge for whitetail but it is perfectly fine for Sitka. For example the Sitka deer on texada island Are very frequently under 100 lb dressed. Not like a 190 lb dressed whitetail. First time i saw one we literally hesitated thinking it might be someone's dog.    I usually hunt with a 30-06 (yes i'm boring) and that was a little much for that little guy.  223 is perfect. 

but ...  while i wouldn't be afraid to shoot a whitetail with a 223 if that's what i had with a decent expanding hunting bullet, it's light for that there's no doubt. 

Edited December 14, 2024 by CdnFox

[Venandi]

12 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

There is no legitimate reasons for civilians to own semi automatic weapons.

What exactly is your heart ache with semi automatics (with 5 round mags)... specifically? If it's rate of fire then please watch this video (CAS with a pistol caliber lever gun). This is a world record holder for speed and accuracy but don't be fooled, the CAS crowd (in general) are pretty darned fast. 

Archey can be done quickly with a bit of practice too, should quivers be limited to 5 arrows? If you're going to respond with something snarky about people not using bows, just keep in mind that they aren't using AR 15s either. 

If you consider the AR15 to be dangerous, how do you rationalize the lack of collection / buyback. A casual observer who actually knows less about this than you (if you can imagine that), might just conclude that they are so dangerous they can only be left in the hands of trustworthy registered owners. 

I'm looking for glimmer of logic here and finding none.

 

Edited December 14, 2024 by Venandi

[gatomontes99]

10 hours ago, I am Groot said:

And you're a virgin and will probably remain one.

If what you all are going through is what it takes to lose virginity, color me pasty white and send me to a convent.

[Venandi]

50 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

If what you all are going through is what it takes to lose virginity, color me pasty white and send me to a convent.

Trouble is, it's almost impossible to have a rational conversation about this because it's such an emotional issue for some folks.

The combination of strong emotion and strong opinion coupled with a lack of experience and knowledge leads to bunny trail responses that serve only to deflect / delay the very remedial action that common sense would suggest be centred in the reticle (so to speak).

We tend not to see this reaction when discussing the regulation of common place things that everyone is familiar with.

If someone who didn't drive and only used mass transit suggested that raising car registration fees would reduce impaired driving you would probably laugh.

Were I to assert that lowering speed limits is the best way to curb speeding, or that painting centrelines pink would stop unsafe passing, or banning the use of racing stripes would lower incidents of stunting you would likely shake your head. 

When I finally got around to banning more than 5 people in a van made to carry nine (because it would save the lives of 4 people per trip) and then passed a law which made you remove 4 seats... followed quickly by confiscating your new van after you had complied, you might even start to become annoyed enough to suggest that my concerns were better addressed by increasing the level of traffic enforcement than punishing responsible drivers.

The analogy isn't quite as ridiculous as you are going to try and make it seem. The only difference is that (almost) everyone has enough in-depth knowledge, experience, and exposure to automobiles that they immediately realize how utterly useless (not to mention expensive) those actions would be.

As an aside, I would have thought that people who consider climate change to be an existential emergency would be the most likely to drive the speed limit. It's something anyone can do and the collective effect would be pretty huge.

Any motorcycle trip through Ontario will trash that expectation pretty quickly. On my last 2 cross country trips (that's four times through the entire length of Ontario), I didn't see a single police car or a single traffic stop. And if ever there was a target rich environment for catching speeders, the Trans Canada through Ontario would certainly be front and centre. 

 

 

Edited December 14, 2024 by Venandi

[Michael Hardner]

9 hours ago, Venandi said:

 . 

I'm looking for glimmer of logic here and finding none.

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30188421/

Well, studies did find a reduction in mass shootings in this category during a ban on semi automatic weapons, according to the Wikipedia summary of this study.

I've never understood why guns should deserve special protection from safety legislation.  I think that it offends some people's concept of free will somehow.

[Venandi]

43 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well, studies did find a reduction in mass shootings in this category during a ban on semi automatic weapons, according to the Wikipedia summary of this study.

 

Even if I were accepted the causal relationship as valid, our border issues would render my acceptance of it moot and suggest we're ignoring the real problem to our own detriment. In addition, the use of US data is nothing short of irrelevant for determining much of anything in Canada.

I suppose I could draw a causal link between road construction and drowning incidents in Ontario but the idea is foolish on its very face. You would quite rightly point out that both things occur in summer. But, if the government amended boating regulations and banned back yard swimming pools (paying home owners to fill them in) to such an extent that road construction had to be curtailed... it would be an ahah moment for those making the comparison. 

I actually took the time (a while ago) to look into one of the studies linking gun ownership to child deaths and injuries.

As you can imagine, it was an emotional thing at the time of release. Turns out that in order to make the stats have the desired impact, it considered anyone below the age of 21 to be a child. As a result, gang members in Toronto were captured. It was on par with the  previous  "crime gun stats" that were oft repeated a couple of years ago. If you drunk uncle punched your neighbour at your New Years Eve party, your entire gun collection instantly became "crime guns." Nationally, the domestic crime gun stats exploded... it was by design though and police departments (IMO again) were willing participants in the deception. As you may recsall, that came about shortly after a Toronto detective falsely asserted that domestic "crime guns made up 50% of the ones seized.

Even I could make the stats look good simply by directing them to stop doing that. 

Here's the crux of the problem (IMO) and it's going unaddressed... this is just what got seized. The numbers flown in with drones and manufactured with 3D technology is on the rise. The X factor here is huge and it's growing fast:

From 2022 to October 2024, the CBSA seized 2,862 firearms, with a staggering 2,818 (98%) sourced from foreign origins, primarily smuggled across borders. Domestic firearm seizures accounted for only 44 cases in the same period.

 

Edited December 14, 2024 by Venandi

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, Venandi said:

1. Even if I were accepted the causal relationship as valid, our border issues would render my acceptance of it moot and suggest we're ignoring the real problem to our own detriment.

2. I suppose I could draw a causal link between road construction and drowning incidents in Ontario but the idea is foolish on its very face.  

 

1. I missed the border issue implication here. It's a discussion that could become very broad so I'll focus on point point number two 

2. I'm glad that you understand causal links. You therefore must understand that there are some things for which a double-blind study is not possible. Some examples include the effects of CO2 on climate, introduction of automatic weapons into a population, effects of vaccination on a mass population. 

In governance, it's sometimes is necessary to just make a decision based on assumptions. In the case of automatic weapons, I would be fine with focusing on the negative implications of a limited number of mass shooting events versus the benefit of allowing them into society. 

Do you follow my framework here?

[Venandi]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

introduction of automatic weapons into a population...

Semi automatic "rifles " are routinely being called "automatic weapons" now, That's not an accident.

"Assault style" is another deliberate construct. Assault rifles have selective fire, and detachable high capacity box magazines... all illegal in Canada.

Yes, I follow your framework but can't wrap my head around its lack of efficacy and total failure to address the problem at hand. IMO, it's closer to my van analogy than you would likely consider reasonable.

Thanks for the reply... sun is out and I have to run. Cheers 

[Michael Hardner]

26 minutes ago, Venandi said:

1. Semi automatic "rifles " are routinely being called "automatic weapons" now, That's not an accident.

2. "Assault style" is another deliberate construct. Assault rifles have selective fire, and detachable high capacity box magazines... all illegal in Canada.

3. Yes, I follow your framework but can't wrap my head around its lack of efficacy and total failure to address the problem at hand. IMO, it's closer to my van analogy than you would likely consider reasonable.

4. Thanks for the reply... sun is out and I have to run. Cheers 

1.  It is on my part.  For the discussion, we're speaking generally so I don't think we're doing material harm to the themes, ie. collective action, assessment of risks, cost/benefit etc.

2. On this, I concede you are correct.  The weaponization of language continues, and I don't like it as it causes overhead on any discussion.  I feel relieved when a discussion partner says "let's just say we know what we're talking about" rather than wrrwdtddt4edantically. (Although I'm guilty of the latter)

3. I don't get the van analogy  Multi-passenger vans have a utility that passes those of civilian semi-auto/auto weapons, it seems clear to me.  

4. Much better than kvetching on a web forum, I agree...