New Canadian Gun Ban

[Lukraak_Sisser]

I personally am fed up with entertaining the childish desire of many alcohol advocates who primarily want to drink their alcohol no matter the cost to others people’s lives.

Alcohol causes far, far more damage than firearms in Canada. There is no comparison in fact. 4-5 people on average die in car crashes caused by impaired driving and thousands are injured every year. That is around 1650 preventable deaths. Hunting rifles accounted for 56 homicides in 2018.
There have no murders or attempted murders by the use of any of the banned firearms since one person was killed and three injured by a Beretta CX4 in 2006. (no definitive word on what was used in the most recent shooting).
In Canada, there were around 77,000 hospitalizations entirely caused by alcohol in 2015–2016, compared to 75,000 hospitalizations for heart attacks in the same year.
In 2012, alcohol was responsible for 4,258 deaths in Canada, representing 1.9% of all deaths.

A report released in 2018 by the Canadian Centre on Substance Use and Addiction and the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research estimated alcohol cost Canadians almost $15 billion per year in terms of lost productivity, justice costs, and more.

So - I ask this of the people who think that the banning of these firearms is some creating some sort of miraculous social improvement in Canada: Since the use of these firearms in criminal activities is exceedingly rare - would it not be better to put your efforts into calling for a complete ban on all alcohol sales?
Please do not talk about how hard it would be as that has nothing at all to do with the question. It is well recognized and publicly stated by the major police agencies in Canada that banning these firearms will NOT keep them out of the hands of the criminals.

Well, the best way to do this is commit a series of high profile mass murders with Alcohol and start a party banning it once public opinion is swayed because of that.

By the way, I actually agree with you, alcohol and tobacco should be banned from society, they indeed cause untold danger.
What I don't see is what that has to do with banning assault rifles from private owners. After all, that is a completely separate issue and now at least a drunk idiot will be less likely to have access to weapons designed to kill lots of people in a quick way from a large distance without a threat to the person using the weapon.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I suppose it might be worth looking in to making it illegal to drive while intoxicated.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

And my freedoms are curtailed too.
I like doing chemical experiments. Yet it is illegal to make my own mustard gas, even though I will of course use it totally responsibly. Why am I being punished because of the misuse of that by others?
If I lived next to Rockinkt I'm sure he would not mind me making that because of freedom right?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I suppose it might be worth looking in to making it illegal to drive while intoxicated.

Hitler!

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16798684

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Mea culpa.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Perhaps my google-fu is weak.

Are any of these banned guns those used by the recent Nova Scotia cop-impostor shooter?

I see lots of references to previous Canadian shootings involving some of these firearms, but no references to the most recent shooting.

The implication, by some lawmakers, is that such a ban might prevent such shootings in the future. Curious that there is no mention of specific firearms used in the most recent shooting that is catalyzing this ban.

 

[Ranb]

How do you think the NRA and/or it's supporters would react to Muslim open carry demonstration in their town?

Probably the same way they react to anyone walking while muslim.

 

[Ranb]

Are any of these banned guns those used by the recent Nova Scotia cop-impostor shooter?

I haven't been able to find anything specific on the guns used or where each one came from. The claim was made that he got some of the guns from the USA; nothing about that either. I don't think the banned guns will suddenly become legal if it turns out he didn't use anything on the current ban list as they were talking about a ban months ago.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Probably the same way they react to anyone walking while muslim.

So by having openly bigoted board members, by having Islamophobic keynote speakers at its prayer breakfasts, Islamophobic panels at its conferences, and meeting with Islamophobic political groups?

Like bigots, in other words.

 

[lomiller]

One mildly annoying thing is that a magazine-fed semi-automatic rifle is more than adequate for assault work, as far as actual infantry tactics are concerned.

"Assault weapon" bans tend to focus on banning cosmetic or secondary features, while ignoring the core features that make it fit for purpose.

Core assault weapon design philosophy is to trade range for high rate of accurate fire and large ammo capacities (which includes increasing the amount of ammo an individual soldier can carry). This is typically achieved with a magazine fed gas operated design firing a mid sized round at high muzzle velocity.

This makes for a rifle that is not very good for hunting or other legitimate civilian use, but the low recoil, high magazine capacity and high muzzle velocity make for a weapon that can fire a lot of rounds accurately (to ~200m) in a short period of time.

This seems to describe many of the banned weapons quite well. There were also a lot of sub-machine gun variants on the list. (very short carbine firing pistol calibre rounds. Full auto and magazi9ens larger than 5 rounds would have already been illegal but the ones I saw were all variants of weapons with those options available)

The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. "Assault weapon" is not the same thing as "assault rifle". The latter is a technical military term for a class of selective fire

No. While selective fire is as feature for a military rifle, it’s primary use is for providing covering fire. It’s not, however, a defining feature. If I had to identify a single defining feature it would be the mid-sized round.

Since covering fire isn’t the reason the rifles are being banned, this feature is basically irrelevant in the context of this thread.

 

[Steve]

IMO all the guns that are in the process of being banned in Canada should be rounded up and deported to the USA. There in the land of the "free to shoot others" they can be adopted by those who really love them and put to the real purpose that was intended by their creators.

 

[Ziggurat]

No. While selective fire is as feature for a military rifle, it’s primary use is for providing covering fire. It’s not, however, a defining feature. If I had to identify a single defining feature it would be the mid-sized round.

Since covering fire isn’t the reason the rifles are being banned, this feature is basically irrelevant in the context of this thread.

Who said anything about a single defining feature? I didn't. I see three key features in the definition here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
"An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine."

Of those three features, many civilian rifles have two: mid-sized rounds and detachable magazines. Selective fire is the key differentiator between "assault weapons" and actual assault rifles. Mid-sized rounds is the key differentiating feature between assault rifles and battle rifles (with large rounds) or submachine guns (small rounds). But since we're comparing assault rifles to "assault weapons", not to battle rifles or submachine guns, selective fire is the feature of most significance, not mid-sized rounds.

And selective fire weapons have already been long banned in both Canada and the US for the general public, so obviously that cannot be the reason for this new ban since that capability was already banned and none of the newly banned weapons had it anyways. That's sort of the point of noting that these aren't assault rifles.

 

[Steve]

Who said anything about a single defining feature? I didn't. I see three key features in the definition here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
"An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine."

Of those three features, many civilian rifles have two: mid-sized rounds and detachable magazines. Selective fire is the key differentiator between "assault weapons" and actual assault rifles. Mid-sized rounds is the key differentiating feature between assault rifles and battle rifles (with large rounds) or submachine guns (small rounds). But since we're comparing assault rifles to "assault weapons", not to battle rifles or submachine guns, selective fire is the feature of most significance, not mid-sized rounds.

And selective fire weapons have already been long banned in both Canada and the US for the general public, so obviously that cannot be the reason for this new ban since that capability was already banned and none of the newly banned weapons had it anyways. That's sort of the point of noting that these aren't assault rifles.

None of this matters. The Canadian government has described and listed the guns that are banned. A majority of Canadians appear to agree with the bans. Opinions of foreigners have little to no relevance.

 

[AnonyMoose]

Trapdoor and break actions are acceptable also?


What about other recreational shooting activities?


I have these kinds of firearms and I do use more than three rounds in rapid succession.


I am not really a danger to anyone at a rifle range while competing or just plinking. Can't hunt animals at the rifle range either.


Of course they are.


Or put holes in paper; knock down metal targets. You are familiar with the Olympic games? Nine shooting events (not including air pistol/rifle) with firearms in the summer games. The modern pentathlon uses a laser pistol that simulates a projectile. The winter games have several biathlon events that use rifles.


The shooting sport are enjoyed by many families with their children. Some children also compete at high levels.


Gun are controlled rather strictly in most countries including the USA. Look at how fast Trump enacted his gun grab.

Find a new hobby.

Hanging black people from trees used to be a hobby too. Times change.

 

[arthwollipot]

Of course, let's talk about the definition of "assault rifle"... again... because that's clearly the most important issue here.

 

[Steve]

Of course, let's talk about the definition of "assault rifle"... again... because that's clearly the most important issue here.

Not merely unimportant. It is a nonexistent issue. It appears to be what American gun enthusiasts raise when they have nothing else to bitch about.

 

[Ranb]

Find a new hobby.

I might, but not because someone who substitutes bias and ignorance for knowledge suggests I should.

Hanging black people from trees used to be a hobby too. Times change.

If you're referring to lynching, it was never legal.

 

[Ranb]

Core assault weapon design philosophy is to trade range for high rate of accurate fire and large ammo capacities (which includes increasing the amount of ammo an individual soldier can carry).

You do realize that you are replying to a quote about assault weapon design with the philosophy that largely cosmetic features (described in the AWB94) are what matters?

This makes for a rifle that is not very good for hunting or other legitimate civilian use,

Says you. I think your claim is nonsense. To be effective for hunting, a rifle only needs to be accurate, portable and powerful. For target shooting accuracy is king with all other considerations less important.

Even a "mid-grade" AR-15 readily meets almost any hunting requirements. Can you explain in detail how you came up with these claims?

 

[lomiller]

You do realize that you are replying to a quote about assault weapon design with the philosophy that largely cosmetic features (described in the AWB94) are what matters?

What banned rifles don't fit the description I gave? IMO the only people having trouble distinguished between real and cosmetic features are the gun nuts.

Says you. I think your claim is nonsense. To be effective for hunting, a rifle only needs to be accurate, portable and powerful. For target shooting accuracy is king with all other considerations less important.

Even a "mid-grade" AR-15 readily meets almost any hunting requirements. Can you explain in detail how you came up with these claims?

There is a massive performance difference between a quality hunting rifle and something like the AR15. No rifle firing a 5.56mm round (or it's nearly identical lower performing cousin the 223) is going to be particularly powerful or accurate past 200m and the AR15 is no exception. Reconfigure the loading mechanism and maybe the low recoil may make it a good starter rifle for a 10 year old, but otherwise it's not a good hunting rifle at all.

It's trading something valuable in hunting (range and stopping power) for something you don't need for hunting (well aimed shots in quick succession). Why would you expect it to be a good hunting rifle?

 

[Ranb]

What banned rifles don't fit the description I gave? IMO the only people having trouble distinguished between real and cosmetic features are the gun nuts.

Prove it to me then. What is the difference?

There is a massive performance difference between a quality hunting rifle and something like the AR15.

Up above the discussion was about a hunting rifle; not necessarily a quality one.

No rifle firing a 5.56mm round (or it's nearly identical lower performing cousin the 223) is going to be particularly powerful or accurate past 200m and the AR15 is no exception.

Surely you understand that game animals are not all large game. The 223 is entirely suitable for small game.

Reconfigure the loading mechanism and maybe the low recoil may make it a good starter rifle for a 10 year old, but otherwise it's not a good hunting rifle at all.

You'll need to do better than that. Explain in detail what makes the accuracy and power of an AR-15 unsuitable for hunting. Keep in mind that an AR-15 can be chambered in many different cartridges from 17 to 50 caliber. You just need the OAL to be 2.26" or less and the rim diameter .473" or less.

It's trading something valuable in hunting (range and stopping power) for something you don't need for hunting (well aimed shots in quick succession). Why would you expect it to be a good hunting rifle?

You are shifting the burden of proof. You declared that the AR-15 is not suitable based on your "fact" that it is not as accurate as a "quality hunting rifle". Please explain in more quantifiable terms such as ft-lbs (or joules) and MOA what makes a suitable or quality hunting rifle.