New Canadian Gun Ban

[TurkeysGhost]

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.

Australia at least understands that box magazines and semi-automatic actions are flatly unacceptable.

To be honest, not sure why Canada isn't taking an approach like this. These half measures like this make sense in the US where gun rights are a third-rail issue in many parts of the country and broader regulations just aren't politically possible.

Focusing on these "assault weapons" feature is just inviting tedious bickering. If the goal is to eliminate the ability of a lone gunman to lay down sustained fire, the Australian approach of limiting box mags and any semi-auto firearm is the way to go. Is there not the political will in Canada to just go all the way and skip this tedious definition fighting?

So long as the Elmer Fudds can get their bolt guns and pump shotguns for hunting season, they probably won't care if they can't shoot anything semi auto, even if many hunting guns are available that way.

 

[lomiller]

Prove it to me then. What is the difference?

You are the one arguing that guns were included in this ban for cosmetic rather than substantive reasons, it’s up to you to provide examples.

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

No, we are discussing whether it’s “a rifle that is not very good for hunting”. You quoted that in your previous response, remember.

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.

Great, so now it’s worse for it’s intended usage. It’s still less accurate, less reliable and higher maintenance than good bolt-action rifle firing the same bullets.

People are not as stupid as you seem to think they are. When you insists you “need” a product for something it’s not even very good at, they are going to figure out that isn’t really why you want one. In the case of the AR15 it’s pretty obvious that it’s appealing to wanna-be commandos who’s learned everything they know about guns from movies and TV because they think it makes them cool. Personally I’d have nothing against this if the design concept itself wasn’t particularly dangerous in mass shooting situations.

 

[lomiller]

To be honest, not sure why Canada isn't taking an approach like this. These half measures like this make sense in the US where gun rights are a third-rail issue in many parts of the country and broader regulations just aren't politically possible.

Magazine with a capacity > 5 rounds were already illegal in Canada. This new ban looks to be extending that to specific guns that where larger magazines are available elsewhere even if they are not legal in Canada.


While semi-automatic rifles are not fully banned, again it looks to be targeting specific guns that use mid size pistol ammunition. You can still get a semi-auto 22, semi-auto 17’s were taken off the market for safety reasons a few years ago. I think you can still get a semi-auto in a high-powered rifle, but those are generally not all that popular, but enough that I think you’d hear a lot of complaining if they were banned.

Still, I could get behind a full out ban on semi-automatic rifles even if it hit some that are not of great concern. I like my semi-auto 22WMR but realistically I does jam occasionally and there is nothing I do with it that a bolt-action couldn’t do.

 

[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). 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, .

I would like you to explain why a rifle with a large ammo capacity and capable of a high rate of fire is not very good for hunting and other uses. Just because the rifle includes these features does not mean it was "traded".

You are the one arguing that guns were included in this ban for cosmetic rather than substantive reasons, it’s up to you to provide examples.

The AWB94 in the US defined the rifles as semi-auto able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of a, folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, flash hider or threaded barrel or a grenade launcher. These are largely cosmetic as without these features the semi-auto rifle is still capable of a high rate of fire. There has not been a significant grenade, flash hider or silencer problem in the USA or Canada.

You claimed in post #90 that these rifles were not very good for hunting and presented no evidence to support your claim. Why not provide evidence that they are not powerful, accurate or portable enough for effective hunting?

A hunting rifle need not be as good as a bolt action rifle to be effective at taking game. You have yet to define how good a bolt action rifle is also. Are you claiming that all bolt rifles are more accurate and powerful than semi-auto rifles?

 

[lomiller]

I would like you to explain why a rifle with a large ammo capacity and capable of a high rate of fire is not very good for hunting

If someone needs to fire 30 rounds to hit something I’m pretty sure I don’t want them hunting anywhere near me.

The AWB94 in the US...

What does the thread title say?

 

[Ranb]

If someone needs to fire 30 rounds to hit something I’m pretty sure I don’t want them hunting anywhere near me.

You're being evasive again. Can you explain why a semi-auto rifle like an AR-15 is not suitable for hunting? What does it lack? Claiming it is not as good as some bolt guns is correct, but this does not mean it is unsuitable for hunting.

Surely you understand that AR-15 mags can be had in 5, 10, 30, 30 and 60 round capacities? They can even be pinned in place or require a tool to remove. Do you actually know hunters who use an AR-15 with a 30 round mag? Some places have laws regarding mag capacity while hunting. Are these people poachers?

 

[Ranb]

What does the thread title say?

I know it's about a Canadian gun ban. I was referring to assault weapon features that are typically used for restricting them. Your remarks in post #90 did not appear to be restricted to guns in Canada. But I'll refrain from talking about the US AWB94.

 

[Leftus]

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

Hard to say, mostly because they did not make public his arsenal. Because making the makes and models known would, somehow, interfere with the investigation.


From the released information, it was one "military style" rifle, another rifle, and a number of handguns. None of which, he came by legally, or even in Canada, of course. So the impact on actual shootings this law will have is essentially zero.

 

[Leftus]

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.

I was fairly lethal at the 500 yard line with iron sights that you say is inaccurate. To be fair, I was also fairly lethal at 200 and 300 as well with the same weapon. Most of my unit was the same.

Not sure where you get the idea that the AR15, or my M16A2 was somehow only good for short range engagements.

 

[Ranb]

The idea is that guns they don't like are just not suitable for hunting; for some reason.

People point to the high rate of fire they are capable of and that semi-auto rifles are in some cases not as accurate as some bolt action rifles. But this does not mean semi-auto rifles are poor choices for hunting.

Equally confusing is the claim that a .224 caliber bullet is not suitable for hunting. It is for certain animals. For large game, selecting an upper for the AR-15 in a .458 or .308 caliber cartridge makes it suitable for elk and black bear for example.

I've yet to see anyone who opposes AR-15's for hunting tell me exactly what power and accuracy is required and why this rifle is incapable of these requirements. Claims of "not as accurate as my bolt gun" and "they can use hi-cap mags" is not a rational answer.

 

[Steve]

The idea is that guns they don't like are just not suitable for hunting; for some reason.

People point to the high rate of fire they are capable of and that semi-auto rifles are in some cases not as accurate as some bolt action rifles. But this does not mean semi-auto rifles are poor choices for hunting.

Equally confusing is the claim that a .224 caliber bullet is not suitable for hunting. It is for certain animals. For large game, selecting an upper for the AR-15 in a .458 or .308 caliber cartridge makes it suitable for elk and black bear for example.

I've yet to see anyone who opposes AR-15's for hunting tell me exactly what power and accuracy is required and why this rifle is incapable of these requirements. Claims of "not as accurate as my bolt gun" and "they can use hi-cap mags" is not a rational answer.

I really don't see why any of this matters. The Canadian government has acted to try to reduce the quantity of guns available to the public in Canada. They are currently doing this by eliminating weapons with a high fire rate and/or large magazines. Splitting hairs about what any single weapon is capable of changes nothing. The bottom line is that the total number of rounds that can be fired by all weapons that can be legally owned in Canada is reduced. This is generally viewed by the Canadian public as a good thing.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

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.

"Don't be sad Johnny, your AR-15 has gone to live on a farm in the United States where there's lots of room for him to run around and shoot people all day."

 

[Ranb]

I really don't see why any of this matters. The Canadian government has acted to try to reduce the quantity of guns available to the public in Canada. They are currently doing this by eliminating weapons with a high fire rate and/or large magazines.

I was not arguing about why Canada has put restrictions on the guns.

Splitting hairs about what any single weapon is capable of changes nothing.

I know it changes nothing about Canadian politics, but something is true or it is not true. Just making up facts about anything is out of place on a skeptics forum.

The bottom line is that the total number of rounds that can be fired by all weapons that can be legally owned in Canada is reduced.

This is not true. Maybe you meant rate of fire as oppose to total rounds fired? To limit the total number of rounds fired would require limits on the amount of ammo that can be possessed. As far as I know this is something the latest restrictions have not done.

 

[eerok]

I really don't see why any of this matters. The Canadian government has acted to try to reduce the quantity of guns available to the public in Canada. They are currently doing this by eliminating weapons with a high fire rate and/or large magazines. Splitting hairs about what any single weapon is capable of changes nothing. The bottom line is that the total number of rounds that can be fired by all weapons that can be legally owned in Canada is reduced. This is generally viewed by the Canadian public as a good thing.

This pretty much sums up how I feel about this ban. There are great hunting guns and of course competition guns, and I'll fight to keep those. But we don't need the guns that represent what we're trying to avoid. We're sick of people shooting other people, and we're sick of the guns that serve as their fetishistic icons. I think this is largely what the ban reflects.

 

[Steve]

This is not true. Maybe you meant rate of fire as oppose to total rounds fired? To limit the total number of rounds fired would require limits on the amount of ammo that can be possessed. As far as I know this is something the latest restrictions have not done.

It doesn' t matter how much ammo a person can own. Smaller magazines, slower rate of fire, more reloading, and potentially fewer gun owners will result in less rounds being fired. Unless those owning legal guns take up the slack an fire a lot more rounds than in the past.

 

[AnonyMoose]

It doesn' t matter how much ammo a person can own. Smaller magazines, slower rate of fire, more reloading, and potentially fewer gun owners will result in less rounds being fired. Unless those owning legal guns take up the slack an fire a lot more rounds than in the past.

You're forgetting about the people who have thousands of bullets in their stockpiles. They can grab handfuls of said bullets and throw them at you, causing you to lose an eye or chip a tooth.

 

[Steve]

You're forgetting about the people who have thousands of bullets in their stockpiles. They can grab handfuls of said bullets and throw them at you, causing you to lose an eye or chip a tooth.

Point accepted.

 

[Ranb]

It doesn' t matter how much ammo a person can own. Smaller magazines, slower rate of fire, more reloading, and potentially fewer gun owners will result in less rounds being fired....

So we agree then. It is rate of fire, not total rounds fired.

 

[rockinkt]

I really don't see why any of this matters. The Canadian government has acted to try to reduce the quantity of guns available to the public in Canada.

No they haven't. They have not tried to do anything to stop the illegal flow of firearms in to Canada from the US where police have stated that the vast majority of firearms used in criminal activity come from.

They are currently doing this by eliminating weapons with a high fire rate and/or large magazines. Splitting hairs about what any single weapon is capable of changes nothing. The bottom line is that the total number of rounds that can be fired by all weapons that can be legally owned in Canada is reduced. This is generally viewed by the Canadian public as a good thing.

The above quote is a perfect example of an opinion based on false information. The vast majority of people who are in favor of this most recent ban are totally clueless about what the laws in Canada have been for decades.
First and foremost - rifle magazines capable of holding more than 5, five, FIVE. (repeat - 5) have been banned in Canada for decades!

None of the firearms banned in Canada have been legally allowed to have rifle magazines capable of holding more than five rounds for decades. The idea that this new ban is takes away dangerous firearms from anybody in Canada is ludicrous.
Right now in Canada there are tens of thousands of firearms that are sold and used in hunting that use far more powerful cartridges than the ones that are banned. They also have the exact same semi-automatic capability and have the exact same rate of fire. They just don't "look military".

Banning the ones that look evil will have no effect on the crime rate. Why? Because semi-automatic rifles have never been singled out as a problem in Canada by police organizations because their use in any sort of criminal activity is exceedingly rare! There has NEVER been a case where an AR-15 type of firearm has been used in ANY criminal killing in Canada. Ever!

Go ahead and base your opinions on how things look. Some of us learned that such uninformed and baseless prejudices were wrong when we were children.

 

[lomiller]

I was fairly lethal at the 500 yard line with iron sights that you say is inaccurate. To be fair, I was also fairly lethal at 200 and 300 as well with the same weapon. Most of my unit was the same.

Not sure where you get the idea that the AR15, or my M16A2 was somehow only good for short range engagements.

12” is about the best grouping you’ll see at 300m with an M16 variant, and that’s using 5.56 ammunition, 223 will be worse. 12” is the difference between a clean shot and hitting a shoulder blade.

A quality hunting rifle can constantly hit targets 4” at that range. Even if you make a pretty good shot the relatively low stopping power of the AR15 means there is a good chance a dear will get up an run anther 2 miles before it does.