Canada bans assault rifle's

lakeside7 wrote:

CanuckBob wrote:90% of the cartel's weapons come from the US. Stop giving them guns and ammo then maybe Mexico can try stopping the drugs from flowing North.

Respectfully if the "current NA" supplier dried up today...tomorrow they would be importing them from Poland.... or where ever they are made in Europe..as "Palm Tree Sapling's" and would be expedited through customs post haste

Absolutely friggin' hilarious. You made my day.

ComputerGuy wrote:I've said it before: no one needs a gun of any kind for any purpose. Period. Hobbyists complain they are only doing target practice. NO ONE needs target practice. Find another sport. When the government says modern style semi-automatic military type weapons, everyone knows exactly what they are talking about. Demanding a definition and saying people are going to go hungry because their gun store will go under? Useless, disconnected rhetoric.

You want target practice? Get a bow and arrow. You want to hunt for your food? Get a bow and arrow.

No one needs a computer computerguy. Seriously fisherman catching halibut in a small boat need a handgun to kill it so it doesn't tear up the boat. Farmers need guns to kill coyotes killing lambs. Ok I agree with you except for your statement that nobody needs a gun of any kind or purpose. I target shot for years but gave it up and got rid of my guns because the gun culture got sick. When I was young guns were not a problem. They are now and I get it but your post goes to far.

No, because fishermen (generally speaking) aren't trying to kill people. And they don't need guns to kill their fish: it's the easy way out. Farmers (generally speaking!) aren't trying to kill people, and they don't need guns to kill coyotes; they can trap them or poison them or whatever is deemed reasonable. And if they do use their "necessary tools" to kill people, then everyone in their profession should suffer the consequences of the bad apple.

You will never be able to convince me that there is a single purpose for guns that something else can do just as well. Maybe not as easily. The point is once guns get in the hands of people, all hell breaks loose.

I propose the governments start from that standpoint, and work their way back.

When I worked in the US I owned a 38 revolver manufactured in Brazil by Taurus. I sold it back to the gun store before I left to ensure it did not make to the black market with my name on it. I enjoyed target shooting. But my point is that guns are manufactured in many different countries.

In how many countries are military style automatic weapons mass produced?

Good question. Israel, USA, Russia, China, UK, ???

ComputerGuy wrote:No, because fishermen (generally speaking) aren't trying to kill people. And they don't need guns to kill their fish: it's the easy way out. Farmers (generally speaking!) aren't trying to kill people, and they don't need guns to kill coyotes; they can trap them or poison them or whatever is deemed reasonable.  And if they do use their "necessary tools" to kill people, then everyone in their profession should suffer the consequences of the bad apple.

You will never be able to convince me that there is a single purpose for guns that something else can do just as well. Maybe not as easily. The point is once guns get in the hands of people, all hell breaks loose.

I propose the governments start from that standpoint, and work their way back.

So you think it ok to trap or poison an animal over a gun? I suppose you don't believe in hunting also? I can't agree with you I guess on this issue.

Ferret, most probably many countries. From my knowledge I can add Switzerland. (its a big world out there, come to think of it every Swiss male that has complete his ecole de recrue has a fusil d'assaut at home).

Zedinmexico wrote:

ComputerGuy wrote:No, because fishermen (generally speaking) aren't trying to kill people. And they don't need guns to kill their fish: it's the easy way out. Farmers (generally speaking!) aren't trying to kill people, and they don't need guns to kill coyotes; they can trap them or poison them or whatever is deemed reasonable.  And if they do use their "necessary tools" to kill people, then everyone in their profession should suffer the consequences of the bad apple.

You will never be able to convince me that there is a single purpose for guns that something else can do just as well. Maybe not as easily. The point is once guns get in the hands of people, all hell breaks loose.

I propose the governments start from that standpoint, and work their way back.

So you think it ok to trap or poison an animal over a gun?  I suppose you don't believe in hunting also?   I can't agree with you I guess on this issue.

That's fine. But I am firm. Yes, I am against hunting as well, for sport. And those that "need" to hunt, as I said, get a bow and arrow. Level the playing field a little bit.

I'm with you 1000% Computer Guy.

Beware because the North American Indians probably still have a huge stash of bow an arrows ready in order to take back there hunting lands.

Computer Guy you are wrong on this one. Some people, maybe a small number, really do need at least a non-automatic rifle as an important tool to their survival. Woodspeople in the north need protection from attacking animals or humans - there are certainly no police around, that is why bad people often hang out there. Hunters for meat, for survival, use their legally issued tags and try to make maximum use of the animal. They are under a moral and legal obligation to make a kill as cleanly and quickly as possible. A slow death, chased by bows and arrows is a horrible way for an animal to die. Zed is right too about halibut, this is hundreds of lbs of pure muscle. We used to caretake a small farm for a South African doctor and his family. It was originally an operating sheep farm, I think he bought it to assist with his immigration. Our neighbor told us that he had no rifle, and they were called over many times to euthanize lambs and sheep which were still alive, but their guts had been ripped open by coyotes. He didn' t stay in the sheep business for long. He moved to Australia and started a successful medical clinic. I have lost contact with him, but this was right in the middle of a beautiful area which was recently hit by devastating wildfires.

I'm willing to be schooled. That's why I said earlier "I propose the governments start from that standpoint, and work their way back". First, announce NO GUNS. Then find out who [i]really/i] might need them.

I'll go with that too, start with no guns and work backwards.

Chillin, your South African landlord could have protected his flock of sheep with dogs. There are several breeds that guard herds of animals very efficiently.

Or a llama.......I had one to protect my goats and sheep back in the days when we had a hobby farm. They can kill most predators with a spiked claw on their back legs. They are very protective of their flock.

Bottom line: who needs an assault rife to protect themselves or their animals?

gringal wrote:Bottom line:  who needs an assault rife to protect themselves or their animals?  

No one because you can buy a semi automatic hunting gun which works just like a (legal unmodified) assault weapon. It just has smaller capacity compared to many assault weapons.   As stated before its all about male egos I am afraid.

Curious Can you buy a semi automatic hunting rifle in Canada?  You can in the US.

Single shot: One pull one shot than you have to reload with the bolt or a rifleman type gun with the lever next to the trigger  for example.  
Semi automatic: One bullet for each pull of the trigger til magazine is empty. No need to put one in the chamber after you fire one. The guns does it automatically.
Fully automatic: One pull and hold it and it keeps firing til magazine is empty as long as you hold trigger down.

In many cases a legal assault rifle can be bought semi automatic and changed to fully automatic fairly easily.  Hunting rifles generally  cannot.

Thanks for arguing in a civil manner everybody!!  Easier to learn if we are not screaming at each other. I think everybody is trying to be cool about it.

Having grown up to close to the Canadian border, we would watch both the US and Canadian news. All a remember about weapons up north is that in the past it was much harder for a Canadian to own a gun and that the % of gun ownership up North was much lower than in the US. And that was one of , if not the primary reason there were many fewer shoot outs and many fewer gun involved crimes in Canada than the US.

In fact I had no idea that one could even own an assault weapon in Canada. Do a much higher % of Canadians have weapons these days? And how about crimes with guns, has that changed to. I would greatly appreciate any information thereon. Thanks in Advance for any comments thereon.

Zedinmexico wrote:

gringal wrote:Bottom line:  who needs an assault rife to protect themselves or their animals?  

Curious Can you buy a semi automatic hunting rifle in Canada?  You can in the US.

Not sure. Ferret posted a link recently to the 69 pages of weapons that were banned this week, 1,500 of them. I'm guessing the curious reporters will weed out which ones are most important.

Let me put it this way Pete. I lived in St Catharines, Ontario for 11 years. Great place to live minus the winters. During that period I do not recall a single shooting, stabbings yes but mainly in the bad area of Niagara Falls. Now I read the St Catharine's Standard on a daily basis and about 2 weeks ago about 3 different shootings were reported in the St Catharine's down town area (Hope this was just a flux).

I didn't even realize you could legally own an assault weapon in Canada. Certainly never knew anyone who had one or were even into guns other than  actual hunting rifles (usually bolt action).

I was quite surprised that most of semi automatic assault rifles, including the AK 47, are actually a little over .22 calibre bullet size. The .45 and .50 calibres are much more destructive. My proof? A movie on netflx called The Extraction. Ha ha. Good action movie but violent.

CHILLIN wrote:I was quite surprised that most of semi automatic assault rifles, including the AK 47, are actually a little over .22 calibre bullet size. The .45 and .50 calibres are much more destructive. My proof? A movie on netflx called The Extraction. Ha ha. Good action movie but violent.

M16 I think is a .223 caliber but its the bullets that are special. They are designed to tumble as they hit the target. So sometimes a 22 isn't a 22 in terms of damage.

You should see the damage an M16 does to the interior of a human body, often irreparable.