Firearms Talk banner
21 - 37 of 37 Posts
We are actually retreating from where we were and are not similar to the UK at all, really. We never got that bizarre
Do you think so.
You need a licence like the UK the same as Canada. You need a training course for firearms in Canada. In the UK you doint. You have background checks like the UK. You have magazine restrictions , there are no mag restrictions in the UK. Firearms have to be stored in a safe like the UK.
Restricted firearms must be unloaded and either:
Made inoperable with a secure locking device (such as a trigger lock) and securely locked in a sturdy container, cabinet or room that cannot be easily broken into; or
Locked in a vault, safe or room that was built or adapted for storing these types of firearms
For automatic firearms, the bolt(s) or bolt-carrier(s) must be removed, if removable, and stored in a separate locked room that cannot be easily broken into
Magazine capacity[20]





Common AR-15 30 round magazines that have been pinned to 5 rounds.
Some magazines are prohibited regardless of the class of firearm to which the magazines are attached. As a general rule, under the Criminal Code, the maximum magazine capacity is:
5 rounds for most magazines designed for rifles that shoot centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic fashion
10 rounds for most handgun magazines
1.Safety training: To be eligible to receive a PAL, all applicants must successfully complete the Canadian Firearms Safety Course[13] (CFSC) for a non-restricted licence, and the Canadian Restricted Firearms Safety Course[14] (CRFSC) for a restricted licence; the non-restricted class is a prerequisite to the restricted licence. The RCMP publishes information on the locations and availability of these courses
They look similar to me.
 
Discussion starter · #22 · (Edited)
Yes, we do have irrational gun laws on the books. But....

Where did your Olympic pistol shooters have to go to train?.....out of the country.

You have some airguns banned. Semi-auto rifles are banned. Etc.

Like I said....our laws are intolerable but yours are from Bizarro World. I'll give you one thing, though - you allow suppressors. The makes a lot of sense.

Stay tuned. Further sensible changes in Canadian gun control laws seem imminent.
 
We never banned handguns....for openers.
Its not that black and white. Black powder handguns can be owned in all of the UK, and handguns for humane dispatch. In this part of the UK any handgun can be owned, no training required or mag restrictions. They didn't ban handguns they banned firearms under certain length, that included most handguns. If they are over a certain length they are allowed, they would not be for me but some people like them.
 

Attachments

Discussion starter · #24 · (Edited)
So, if you can own a handgun that is 2 ft. long, you'd say you have not banned pistols?:rolleyes:

Look, if you think it is useful to look to Canada, then take away the fact that we at long last just trashed our long gun registry. And it ain't over yet....

You can also take away the fact that hard work, clarity and determination was required to back us up a tad and dithering won't git 'er done.
 
So, if you can own a handgun that is 2 ft. long, you'd say you have not banned pistols?
I was explaining that the law did not say it was banning handguns, it banned firearms under a certain length. Which had the same effect. I also said the longer handguns are not for me , but if people enjoy shooting them I am not going to criticise them. And it doesn't affect me as there are no restrictions on the handguns I can own apart from fully automatic.

Where did your Olympic pistol shooters have to go to train
Some trained in this part of the UK. I don't know of any air guns being banned, you need a licence if they are over 12 ft lbs muzzle energy. As for semi auto rifles .22 semi auto rifles are legal no mag restriction. Full bore semi auto are banned. But you can still buy M4-s and AK/ 47-S single shot.
 
Discussion starter · #27 ·
And it doesn't affect me as there are no restrictions on the handguns I can own apart from fully automatic.
And that is why your gun laws are so draconian. Too many of you said "This doesn't affect me."

You should read these articles:

http://www.nrapublications.org/index.php/12018/it-will-never-happen-here/

http://www.nrapublications.org/index.php/11688/london-burning/

Keep dithering and splitting hairs and ignoring what does not affect you personally and you will inherit the whirlwind.
 
And that is why your gun laws are so draconian. Too many of you said "This doesn't affect me."

You should read these articles:
No that's just pointing out a fact. The reason they are so draconian is because most citizens in the UK have no interest in firearms, so the government can push trough laws without any fear of losing votes.

Not to be picky, but the firearms laws do not state that firearms must be stored in a safe - there are options.
Storage

Non-restricted firearms must be unloaded and either:
Made inoperable with a secure locking device (such as a trigger lock); or
Have bolts or bolt-carriers removed; or
Securely locked in a sturdy container, cabinet or room that cannot be easily broken into
Except if: (1) in areas where it is legal to fire a gun, non-restricted firearms needed for predator control can temporarily be left unlocked and operable, but they must be kept unloaded and all ammunition must be stored separately, and (2) in wilderness areas, non-restricted firearms can be left unlocked and/or operable, but must be left unloaded (ammunition may be kept nearby).
As I said the firearms laws in the UK are not much more draconian than the laws in Canada.

The article in the link is rubbish, the police Army and people in N Ireland( UK )have being carrying firearms for years and it has not stopped the some of the worst violence and rioting in Europe. If you think because some people are armed it will stop people rioting you are kidding yourself. PS Self defence would not seen as a good reason for owning a firearm in Canada that's why handguns can not be owned or carried for self defence.
 
No that's just pointing out a fact. The reason they are so draconian is because most citizens in the UK have no interest in firearms, so the government can push trough laws without any fear of losing votes.




As I said the firearms laws in the UK are not much more draconian than the laws in Canada.

The article in the link is rubbish, the police Army and people in N Ireland( UK )have being carrying firearms for years and it has not stopped the some of the worst violence and rioting in Europe. If you think because some people are armed it will stop people rioting you are kidding yourself. PS Self defence would not seen as a good reason for owning a firearm in Canada that's why handguns can not be owned or carried for self defence.
"most citizens in the UK have no interest in firearms," No interest probably means unless your in the military, you also have no access to weapons nor do you know how to use them.

I like the Kentucky Long Pistol idea but CCW might be a bit tough with that.

When was the last time England had to actually save their own arses from an invader? I know the answer, not in the last couple centuries! They learned to let others worry more about their futures than themselves. UKers have no interest until someone wants what they have then what will you do? I know the answer to that also, Call the Former slave colony now known as the USA and ask for reinforcements.

Heres what Ive noticed- The last nation to attack the USA prior to England was Japan, that didnt turn out so well for them, their plan Bombed!!!! We spanked their asses like a couple hundreds years before we did to the Crown! The USA has no foreign military presence in our country but we are present in many nations like the UK as a deterrent to Hitlers, Hito's, Stallins and others that want to do what Jolly old England did to Scotland and America!

Our proximity to foreign invaders other than South Americans is certainly a deterrent but I would have to say that the fact so many Americans "DO HAVE AN INTEREST IN FIREARMS" is even a bigger factor! We have more firearms and bullets in our county than many small nations have including their armed forces. 8 out of 10 homes on my road are armed and ready to respond to a Coyote, thug or invader of any kind. Add to that, all of our LEO's even Game Wardens are packing heat not tiny baseball bats. Thats like playing a game of Russian roulette with an AR15, no chance of avoiding a round or two through the gourd!

I live in the most forearm restrictive state in the union (as of a little over a year ago). We have just begun to rally against the restrictions and were already gaining ground. Were not hoping to just eliminate the new laws, were going after some of the old ones as well. Just as a reminder of what we will accept as law, heres the one real Americans believe in-----

2nd Amendment- A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I know its pretty simple, we like it that way, everyone here cant afford an Oxford Education to read the ;laws they must follow so The KISS System works for most of us in the US. Let me remind you of what happens to a nation that doesnt care about firearms, they get occupied for life by nations that do!

RAF Alconbury, Cambridgeshire
RAF Croughton, Northamptonshire
RAF Lakenheath, Brandon, Suffolk [2]
RAF Menwith Hill, Yorkshire Dales
RAF Mildenhall, Mildenhall [3]

Just saying...
 
most citizens in the UK have no interest in firearms," No interest probably means unless your in the military, you also have no access to weapons nor do you know how to use them.
Sometimes I think I am wasting my time . People seem to have their own view on thing and even if its totally wrong they, and proved to be wrong they still believe what they want to believe. I doint understand that type of thinking, you get it in both pro gun and anti gun individuals. Anyone over the age of 18 can have a firearm in the UK, unless they have a violent crime background. Now that's a fact if people doint believe me a quick internet search will confirm that. People just post things to suit their agenda, and doint let the truth get in the way.

When was the last time England had to actually save their own arses from an invader? I know the answer, not in the last couple centuries! They learned to let others worry more about their futures than themselves. UKers have no interest until someone wants what they have then what will you do? I know the answer to that also, Call the Former slave colony now known as the USA and ask for reinforcements.
Do you have a point or is it just another boring anti British post. I am not sure what it has to do with the thread.
Jolly old England did to Scotland and America!
What the same as Americans did to the Native American Indians. ? PS The joke is that some have a go at me for having a go at Americans. :rolleyes:
 
Discussion starter · #32 · (Edited)
Self defence would not seen as a good reason for owning a firearm in Canada that's why handguns can not be owned or carried for self defence.
There are, indeed, many here in Canada who think like you do; including most police officers and prosecutors and some judges. They are all wrong. The right to self-defence is meaningless if people are not permitted the means to effectively exercise it. My point is made over and over in other people's blood - like the women who called "911" repeatedly in Winnipeg a few years ago as a known stalker threatened them over a 15-20 minute period and then killed them. Their story became public when somebody released the 911 tapes. Miserable deaths like that bother me. Progressives, not so much.

Sometimes I think I am wasting my time . People seem to have their own view on thing and even if its totally wrong they, and proved to be wrong they still believe what they want to believe.
Some of us here know exactly what you're talking about.

The difference is that we have read and studied the facts, studies and philosophies surrounding gun control and you seem to have pretty much been satisfied with your opinion. That is your right. You are entitled to make up your own opinion and cling to it. You are not entitled to make up your own facts to support said opinions, however.
 
Sometimes I think I am wasting my time . People seem to have their own view on thing and even if its totally wrong they, and proved to be wrong they still believe what they want to believe. I doint understand that type of thinking, you get it in both pro gun and anti gun individuals. Anyone over the age of 18 can have a firearm in the UK, unless they have a violent crime background. Now that's a fact if people doint believe me a quick internet search will confirm that. People just post things to suit their agenda, and doint let the truth get in the way.

Do you have a point or is it just another boring anti British post. I am not sure what it has to do with the thread.
What the same as Americans did to the Native American Indians. ? PS The joke is that some have a go at me for having a go at Americans. :rolleyes:
I thought you said UK folks dont have any interest in Firearms? Thats my big point, it cant be because your crime rate is low or you dont have to worry about neighbors with questionable intentions cause your stats on both are pretty shaky. My guess is they have progressed past self defense and other responses to leave it to the authorities. The authorities are the same ones that are surrounded by armed protectors unlike the plebes.

Dont get me wrong Manta, This rant isnt anti Brit, Like I said before, I live in one of the most oppressive states in the Union so Im not much better off than our predecessor homeland you call home. Unlike England, New England and New Yorkers are fighting back, we wont quit until we win.

And about that Indian thing, we were a British colony when the slaughter began, another reason it took us hundreds years before we ended the bloodshed. The Indians were pretty pissed off at the red coats and that was plenty of a problem even after they left. Actually, The USA is about the only nation in the world that didnt have colonies but weve mopped up after countries that did and lost control of them.
 
The difference is that we have read and studied the facts, studies and philosophies surrounding gun control and you seem to have pretty much been satisfied with your opinion. That is your right. You are entitled to make up your own opinion and cling to it. You are not entitled to make up your own facts to support said opinions, however.
You have lost me. I pointed out the firearms controls in Canada, I didn't say I agreed with them. I think people in Canada and the UK should be able to carry firearms for self defence just like in America. So I am not sure where you are coming from.

I thought you said UK folks dont have any interest in Firearms? Thats my big point, it cant be because your crime rate is low or you dont have to worry about neighbors with questionable intentions cause your stats on both are pretty shaky.
I doint know either why firearms are not popular among most in the UK. But I know its not because they are hard to get. There are plenty of firearms clubs in this part of the UK but its still a minority pursuit.

And about that Indian thing, we were a British colony when the slaughter began, another reason it took us hundreds years before we ended the bloodshed. The Indians were pretty pissed off at the red coats and that was plenty of a problem even after they left.
So the slaughter of the Native American Indians by American settlers and army was the fault of the British, that were not in control at the time. I think that's rewriting history. It was the greed of the American government and people for land and gold that lead to the slaughter of the Indians, not the British. I think most Americans and historians would agree. What was seen as excitable behaviour by countries a few hundred years ago would not be now. As for the UK Scotland can leave if a majority want to. There is a Scottish independence vote on 18 September 2014, the same goes for any region of the UK.
 
In all fairness to the Conservatives (for now) the new law change was at the discretion of the RCMP, and not actually approved by the government. According to bill C-68 the RCMP has unilateral power to reclassify guns at their discretion without being subject to review by Parliament.

With that said this is absolute nonsense. I have written emails to my local MP, the Prime Ministers office, and to Public Safety Minister MP Steven Blaney explaining my thoughts on this decision and my expectations that they take action to rectify this.

A two-year amnesty has been approved meaning that owners will not be charged with crimes for possession - it's not much but at least it buys them time to get organized.


The Conservatives have attempted to ease-up controls, mostly just with the LGR, but as far as these bans are concerned, it was not directly of their doing. FOR NOW, I will give them some slack and will lay blame at the feet of the RCMP.

RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson is the man responsible for this.

Let's blame the man responsible. Write your MP, the PMO and your local advocacy groups. Keep the pressure up!
 
In all fairness to the Conservatives (for now) the new law change was at the discretion of the RCMP, and not actually approved by the government. According to bill C-68 the RCMP has unilateral power to reclassify guns at their discretion without being subject to review by Parliament.
Nope, not at all. This will be explained below the quote.
With that said this is absolute nonsense. I have written emails to my local MP, the Prime Ministers office, and to Public Safety Minister MP Steven Blaney explaining my thoughts on this decision and my expectations that they take action to rectify this.
Step 1: Admit the reclassification was their fault, not throw the RCMP under the bus and hold their heads in the sand.
A two-year amnesty has been approved meaning that owners will not be charged with crimes for possession - it's not much but at least it buys them time to get organized.


The Conservatives have attempted to ease-up controls, mostly just with the LGR, but as far as these bans are concerned, it was not directly of their doing. FOR NOW, I will give them some slack and will lay blame at the feet of the RCMP.
The Conservatives should not be getting away with blaming the RCMP for the change. It was the Conservatives that allowed the Order in Council to stand.
RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson is the man responsible for this.
Nope.
Let's blame the man responsible. By man responsible, I hope you mean Prime Minister Harper. Write your MP, the PMO and your local advocacy groups. Keep the pressure up!
There was a recent Access to Information Program request sent to the RCMP on the "reclassification". Here is the link to the ATI document.

The ATI proves one of the things that has been bugging me for weeks.

The opposition has been getting away with saying things similar to "the RCMP banned this weapon because it is too dangerous for Canadians."

That is bull****, as the RCMP didn't prohibit the firearm due to any feature. The RCMP prohibited it as they were following an Order in Council (OIC) passed by the Liberal party that prohibited:

The firearms of the designs commonly known as the SG-550 rifle and SG-551 carbine, and any variants or modified versions of them.
The RCMP at NO POINT made any judgement on the safety, danger, appropriateness, or otherwise of Canadians owning Swiss Arms products. The RCMP were simply following the highly politicized and flawed legislation. There was no discretion used, the Classic Greens ARE SG550s.

Similarly, the Conservatives should not be getting away with blaming the RCMP for the change. It was the Conservatives that allowed the Order in Council to stand for more than 7 years.

There was no need for a new amnesty, that was an odd decision by Blaney, he could have just amended the OIC to not include any reference to the SG-550 or SG-551. Converted autos, and automatics (original SG550s) would still remain prohibited, but purpose built semi-auto SG550s would be fine!
 
We are actually retreating from where we were and are not similar to the UK at all, really. We never got that bizarre.

Canada remains one of the small handful of countries that ever repealed gun registration laws. We still require registration of handguns - a requirement that was brought in around 1930 when there was a fear of an armed Bolshevik uprising. I haven't met an armed Bolshevik in.....ever. Just goes to show you how hard it is to get rid of a bad law.

We do have a fair ways to go to get out of the gun control asylum. I'd sure agree on that much.
Wait a second. You say it was enacted to prevent armed Bolsheviks and you have never seen an armed Bolshevik? Heck, it sounds like it worked perfectly for round about 84 years.........
 
21 - 37 of 37 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top