J-Dizzle Posted April 21, 2020 Share Posted April 21, 2020 1 minute ago, RUPERTKBD said: But this is different than having information in a database.....and if the database had caught this attack before it happened, we might not see this legislation. And why does any "law abiding" citizen need access to an assault rifle? you're completely missing the point. A guy snaps and - for the second time in twenty years - carries out a mass shooting in Canada and the immediate follow up is: We're going to ban military style assault rifles. You CANNOT own a military style assault rifle in Canada so what is it Trudeau is talking about banning??? ....coming back to the database, it's looking like it probably wouldn't have caught this but we'll see I guess. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted April 21, 2020 Share Posted April 21, 2020 19 minutes ago, Lancaster said: Well, he's been breaking the law since 2001. Illegally possessing a firearms.... pretty like every single gangsters out there. Don't you rather spend money/resource towards them? I mean... there are probably thousands across this country. no doubt he has. My point is if we knew what he purchased before 2001, the police would be able to ask him to turn those guns in. If he didn't thats a massive red flag. Sure he could say stuff like "it was stolen" and bury it in the yard, etc. but at least we'd know who to spend resources on watching. The way databases are now, it wouldn't be hard at all for it to be populated automatically from purchasing records, so there'd be no additional burden on owners. I see that as a fair compromise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted April 21, 2020 Share Posted April 21, 2020 7 minutes ago, J-Dizzle said: you're completely missing the point. A guy snaps and - for the second time in twenty years - carries out a mass shooting in Canada and the immediate follow up is: We're going to ban military style assault rifles. You CANNOT own a military style assault rifle in Canada so what is it Trudeau is talking about banning??? ....coming back to the database, it's looking like it probably wouldn't have caught this but we'll see I guess. Who cares? If it's a non-issue, it's a non-issue. In any event, this argument is getting cyclical (as these usually do) In a nutshell I don't believe that the establishment of a firearm database is going to lead to the seizure of your "squirrel rifle", nor do I believe your "privacy" is impinged by such a database. To me, these complaints are just parroting the NRA talking points that over time, have led to the absolute mess that exists in the US right now. Like Jimmy, I'm fully in favor of any method or measure designed to lessen the frequency and severity of incidents like the one in Nova Scotia this weekend, whether or not such cases are rare. I just don't see your so-called "right to privacy" as more important than the authorities' ability to possibly prevent these incidents. Agree to disagree. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted April 21, 2020 Share Posted April 21, 2020 47 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: OK so you've got some libertarian paranoia thing going on. Sorry, but thats not a reason to not try new prevention methods. Tell me how you'd actually be materially effected by a purchasing database. If we had one back in 2001, the police would have known what the NS gunman had purchased and they would know what to collect from him when he was convicted. Pretty sure you knew I was a libertarian. Jim we won't find common ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted April 21, 2020 Share Posted April 21, 2020 1 minute ago, Ryan Strome said: Pretty sure you knew I was a libertarian. Jim we won't find common ground. Who says we never agree on anything, eh Ryan.... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted April 21, 2020 Share Posted April 21, 2020 11 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: no doubt he has. My point is if we knew what he purchased before 2001, the police would be able to ask him to turn those guns in. If he didn't thats a massive red flag. Sure he could say stuff like "it was stolen" and bury it in the yard, etc. but at least we'd know who to spend resources on watching. The way databases are now, it wouldn't be hard at all for it to be populated automatically from purchasing records, so there'd be no additional burden on owners. I see that as a fair compromise. Except there will be additional costs. I mean what you are proposing is more or less the same long-gun registry from years past and that was $2.7 billion. They're not just going to set up a spreadsheet on Google Docs. Setting up a new department... they'll need to hire someone to head the department, lots of brand new computers and other server equipment, renting out a very secured facility to store said information, a bit of clerical staff to pull out requests, supervisors to supervise, managers to manage, consultants brought in to consult, misc office supplies, security clearance and background checks, etc. $2.7 billion might not even be enough nowadays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-Dizzle Posted April 21, 2020 Share Posted April 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said: Who cares? If it's a non-issue, it's a non-issue. In any event, this argument is getting cyclical (as these usually do) In a nutshell I don't believe that the establishment of a firearm database is going to lead to the seizure of your "squirrel rifle", nor do I believe your "privacy" is impinged by such a database. To me, these complaints are just parroting the NRA talking points that over time, have led to the absolute mess that exists in the US right now. Like Jimmy, I'm fully in favor of any method or measure designed to lessen the frequency and severity of incidents like the one in Nova Scotia this weekend, whether or not such cases are rare. I just don't see your so-called "right to privacy" as more important than the authorities' ability to possibly prevent these incidents. Agree to disagree. sure we can end the database discussion if you'd like.... the reason I brought up the assault rifle comment is because it isn't a non-issue. Trudeau is referring to my squirrel gun (literally in some cases) as an assault rifle. He's using a term associated with one type of firearm but applying it to others. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted April 21, 2020 Share Posted April 21, 2020 4 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said: Who cares? If it's a non-issue, it's a non-issue. In any event, this argument is getting cyclical (as these usually do) In a nutshell I don't believe that the establishment of a firearm database is going to lead to the seizure of your "squirrel rifle", nor do I believe your "privacy" is impinged by such a database. To me, these complaints are just parroting the NRA talking points that over time, have led to the absolute mess that exists in the US right now. Like Jimmy, I'm fully in favor of any method or measure designed to lessen the frequency and severity of incidents like the one in Nova Scotia this weekend, whether or not such cases are rare. I just don't see your so-called "right to privacy" as more important than the authorities' ability to possibly prevent these incidents. Agree to disagree. When you have decision makers who ban some guns in this photo and then have some of them as non-restricted.... that is really messed up. They're all the same gun.... shooting the smallest calibre bullet out there. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greenbean Posted April 21, 2020 Share Posted April 21, 2020 24 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said: But this is different than having information in a database.....and if the database had caught this attack before it happened, we might not see this legislation. And why does any "law abiding" citizen need access to an assault rifle? We absolutely don't, I agree 100% with that. Fully Autos are banned in Canada, you cannot own one and I agree with that law. I also agree with the law limiting the size of a magazine you are allowed to own in Canada. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted April 21, 2020 Share Posted April 21, 2020 5 minutes ago, J-Dizzle said: sure we can end the database discussion if you'd like.... the reason I brought up the assault rifle comment is because it isn't a non-issue. Trudeau is referring to my squirrel gun (literally in some cases) as an assault rifle. He's using a term associated with one type of firearm but applying it to others. I can't find anything to support that. All I was able to find is that fully automatic weapons are prohibited. I didn't think all AR type weapons were fully auto. The next category that I saw was "Restricted Weapons". http://www.firearmstraining.ca/classes.htm It seems to me that some of these would be targets of the porposed legislation, rather than the squirrel rifle. If I'm mistaken about that, I'd welcome information that shows otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted April 21, 2020 Share Posted April 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, greenbean said: We absolutely don't, I agree 100% with that. Fully Autos are banned in Canada, you cannot own one and I agree with that law. I also agree with the law limiting the size of a magazine you are allowed to own in Canada. Kind of pointless though. Most magazines are just set to 5 rounds due to a flimsy piece of plastic you can just snap right off. Or you can probably drill the ones that are metal. Then there's 3D printing of magazine which some do in the USA. Doesn't promote actual safety as anyone with ill intention would just snap off that piece. All it does it make it a figurative pain in the posterior for gun owners who don't want to end up in prison and receive actual pain in the posterior. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted April 21, 2020 Share Posted April 21, 2020 7 minutes ago, Lancaster said: When you have decision makers who ban some guns in this photo and then have some of them as non-restricted.... that is really messed up. They're all the same gun.... shooting the smallest calibre bullet out there. If you say so.... ....in the final anlysis, do you have access to weapons that will allow you to go squirrel (or moose) hunting, or do you not? Same with target shooting: Can you legally buy these guns? Finally, this was listed on the site I visited (and linked in my previous post): Quote Most types of prohibited firearms are "grandfathered" to their current legal owners (i.e., owners are allowed to keep them), but cannot be transfered to non-grandfathered individuals It seems to me that the above disproves the argument that anyone is going to take anything away from you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted April 21, 2020 Share Posted April 21, 2020 3 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said: I can't find anything to support that. All I was able to find is that fully automatic weapons are prohibited. I didn't think all AR type weapons were fully auto. The next category that I saw was "Restricted Weapons". http://www.firearmstraining.ca/classes.htm It seems to me that some of these would be targets of the porposed legislation, rather than the squirrel rifle. If I'm mistaken about that, I'd welcome information that shows otherwise. The problem with classification is that may be misconstrued that it may be more dangerous than non-restricted, but it's actually more or less random. This guy explains it pretty well. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted April 21, 2020 Share Posted April 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, Lancaster said: The problem with classification is that may be misconstrued that it may be more dangerous than non-restricted, but it's actually more or less random. This guy explains it pretty well. I don't see how inconsistent classification really makes a difference. You can still purchase hunting rifles and target pistols that are capable to handling the task, can you not? And you understand that legally purchased weapons deemed prohibited after they were purchased are grandfathered, correct? So, database or no, AR ban or no, no-one is coming to confiscate your "squirrel rifle"..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted April 21, 2020 Share Posted April 21, 2020 Just now, RUPERTKBD said: If you say so.... ....in the final anlysis, do you have access to weapons that will allow you to go squirrel (or moose) hunting, or do you not? Same with target shooting: Can you legally buy these guns? Finally, this was listed on the site I visited (and linked in my previous post): It seems to me that the above disproves the argument that anyone is going to take anything away from you. The photo I posted are all the same gun. No difference save for the aesthetics. The one that more resembles an AK-47, called the Blaze-47 (marketing) is banned in Canada. The more "girlish" pink version is non-registered, thus it is a very good entry gun for first timers and for kids. It really do not make any sense why one is banned and one is not. It's like saying a Silver Honda Civic is perfectly legit, but the Red Civic is illegal as it "resembles" a Ferrari. When you go hunting, you can only use non-restricted firearms. So no AR15 or handguns.... but you're more than allowed to bring along the majority of bolt-action rifles (you have to yank back to reload), many other semi-auto rifles (vz58, SKS, etc). I don't hunt, so maybe other can give better info on it. You can make your gun look like the old stuff people used in the Old West pioneering days... or you can change your gun to look like you're trying to be Rambo. Most of the time... it's probably the same gun. For the range, you can bring along your restricted stuff (AR15, handguns, etc).... but you can only give from your house directly to the range. No stopping by the bar with your buddies to catch the game, no stopping by Superstore to pick up milk, etc. You can shoot smaller calibre guns or even stuff that can shoot down helicopters if you want... it's really up to the range and whether it is designed for those guns. All the firearms... you can just buy at your local gun store, online from Cabelas, at Canadian Tire, etc. With the grandfather policy... it's case specific. For the CZ858, I do not believe they allowed people to be "grandfathered" in. But some stuff from way back when, like when the AK47 was still legal in Canada.... some people got grandfathered in. But that pretty much killed all value for your guns, since you can't even let your estate to inherit them after your passing. I think some vets had their service weapons from WW1, WW2, etc... and they couldn't let their family hold onto them after the vets died as those weapons were classified as prohibited and are non-transferable. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted April 21, 2020 Share Posted April 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, Lancaster said: The photo I posted are all the same gun. No difference save for the aesthetics. The one that more resembles an AK-47, called the Blaze-47 (marketing) is banned in Canada. The more "girlish" pink version is non-registered, thus it is a very good entry gun for first timers and for kids. It really do not make any sense why one is banned and one is not. It's like saying a Silver Honda Civic is perfectly legit, but the Red Civic is illegal as it "resembles" a Ferrari. When you go hunting, you can only use non-restricted firearms. So no AR15 or handguns.... but you're more than allowed to bring along the majority of bolt-action rifles (you have to yank back to reload), many other semi-auto rifles (vz58, SKS, etc). I don't hunt, so maybe other can give better info on it. You can make your gun look like the old stuff people used in the Old West pioneering days... or you can change your gun to look like you're trying to be Rambo. Most of the time... it's probably the same gun. For the range, you can bring along your restricted stuff (AR15, handguns, etc).... but you can only give from your house directly to the range. No stopping by the bar with your buddies to catch the game, no stopping by Superstore to pick up milk, etc. You can shoot smaller calibre guns or even stuff that can shoot down helicopters if you want... it's really up to the range and whether it is designed for those guns. All the firearms... you can just buy at your local gun store, online from Cabelas, at Canadian Tire, etc. With the grandfather policy... it's case specific. For the CZ858, I do not believe they allowed people to be "grandfathered" in. But some stuff from way back when, like when the AK47 was still legal in Canada.... some people got grandfathered in. But that pretty much killed all value for your guns, since you can't even let your estate to inherit them after your passing. I think some vets had their service weapons from WW1, WW2, etc... and they couldn't let their family hold onto them after the vets died as those weapons were classified as prohibited and are non-transferable. Thanks for the info...I don't really see any of that as a huge hardship. Nor do I see anything that suggests the impending confiscation of your squirrel rifle.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted April 21, 2020 Share Posted April 21, 2020 Just now, RUPERTKBD said: Thanks for the info...I don't really see any of that as a huge hardship. Nor do I see anything that suggests the impending confiscation of your squirrel rifle.... Well... if they suddenly decided my little squirrel shooter looks "dangerous" and thus becomes prohibited with no allowance to be grandfathered in, that would mean it would be. There has been previous precedence of similar actions done already. When things get prohibited, it basically still means confiscation... just delayed. If the powers-that-be are willing to be engaged with the the firearms community and not just pass legislation by rolling dices, most firearms owners wouldn't be so antagonistic at times. But almost all previous cases has been shown that either they are incompetent, or at worst, insidious. I am by no means an expert... just happen to research and follow the firearms debate more than most. There's been more than enough actions done by the government, police, courts etc.... where you go "what the ----?" where you can easily become skeptical whenever government enact more stuff against firearms owner. You can have some druggie shooting a gun and go off scott-free... but a responsible owner with his own bank vault being broken into being charged with prison time.... you just simply can't put too faith into the authorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-Dizzle Posted April 21, 2020 Share Posted April 21, 2020 5 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said: Thanks for the info...I don't really see any of that as a huge hardship. Nor do I see anything that suggests the impending confiscation of your squirrel rifle.... Beer’s all the same.... let the government pick and choose which one you can drink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted April 21, 2020 Share Posted April 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, J-Dizzle said: Beer’s all the same.... let the government pick and choose which one you can drink. I don't see the two situations as anywhere close to analogous. We're kind of drifting off into the ridiculous, so a good time to call it, I think.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted April 21, 2020 Share Posted April 21, 2020 1 hour ago, Ryan Strome said: Jim we won't find common ground. well, thats what a democracy is for. But we should be able to. Its disappointing that we can't de-politicize gun safety. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now