Thread: Canada bans assault weapons

Originally Posted by pickel

You don't need an AR-15 to bring down a deer,

He's right, wrong tool for the job and something with a lot more biff than a .223 is needed for a clean kill. So deer hunters should buy a bolt action .300 Win Mag or similar, and have no reason to own a weapon of war AR-15. Unless owning one isn't really about hunting deer or they're American, obviously.

Originally Posted by pickel

The overwhelming majority of gun deaths in Canada are caused by handguns, mostly illegal ones, and Trudeau didn't ban those. And assault rifles are illegal and have been for some time. The ones he banned just look like them, but are incapable of selective fire. But you probably don't know that.

links?
Guns are not easy to get, they need to be registered.. and in regards to illegal ones, I don't know much about that or how they get them. It isn't like people can just go buy Ammo in walmart like in the US. Guns have to be registered and are used mostly for hunting.

Originally Posted by MarilynMonroe

links?

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1...pid=3510007201

Originally Posted by MarilynMonroe

Guns are not easy to get, they need to be registered

No shit Sherlock, I've already mentioned that in this thread.

Originally Posted by MarilynMonroe

It isn't like people can just go buy Ammo in walmart like in the US.

Walmarts in Canada sell ammunition. I've purchased it there myself.

Originally Posted by MarilynMonroe

Guns have to be registered and are used mostly for hunting.

The ones banned, as well as handguns, can't be used for hunting. Most guns are used at a gun range.

You've done a very good job at supporting my argument in regards to Harry's polls.

This is Trudeaus way of exploiting the naivety of most Canadians, in regards to knowledge of guns, to gain votes when the money would be better spent in fighting smuggling and gang violence, and would have more immediate results.

Originally Posted by Headworx

He's right, wrong tool for the job and something with a lot more biff than a .223 is needed for a clean kill. So deer hunters should buy a bolt action .300 Win Mag or similar, and have no reason to own a weapon of war AR-15. Unless owning one isn't really about hunting deer or they're American, obviously.

I wouldn't fancy hunting moose in bear country without one

Can even bring down a charging polar bear with one..

Arizona -(Ammoland.com)- Zeb Cadzow and Paul Herbert are experienced hunters who live north of the Arctic Circle in Fort Yukon, Alaska.

In late March of 2008, residents of Fort Yukon, Alaska become concerned because a bear was not exhibiting any fear of humans near their town. Peter John originally saw the bear eating lynx carcasses near a cabin on the edge of town.

People did not believe the white bear was a polar bear. Polar bears had never been seen in the area. They thought it was an albino grizzly or a grizzly bear covered with frost.

The hunters, who depend for their lives on their rifles, did not carry .357 magnums or .30-06 model Winchester Model 70s. They carried AR-15s.

Many hunters who depend on rifles for survival in the far north carry high-velocity, small caliber rifles. They can carry much more ammunition, they are easy to shoot, and are flat shooting. They offer excellent accuracy. The magazine capacity is a plus.

The two experienced hunters, on tracking a large bear that showed no fear of people, choose the AR-15 in .223. From shootersforum.com:

“There’s usually grizzly around this time of year,” he said. “You want to get rid of it because it’s hungry.”

The men tracked the bear three miles out of town to the Porcupine River, where it moved onto a river island.

At that point, most of the hunters returned to Fort Yukon for a sled dog race, leaving Cadzow, 30, and Paul Herbert, 60, to continue the hunt.
“We assumed we were chasing a grizzly bear,” Herbert said.

Cadzow concurred, thinking the white description meant it was an albino bear or a grizzly covered in frost.

While Herbert waited at one end of the island, Cadzow, on foot, went into the brush tracking the bear.

Suddenly, the bear came out from under a brush pile about 10 yards away. It charged straight at Cadzow, who was carrying an AR-15, a rifle similar to the U.S. Army’s M-16.

AR-15 Used to Defend Against Charging Polar Bear
AR-15 Used to Defend Against Charging Polar Bear
National Geographic Wild included the incident in a 2015 video. Not surprisingly, they mis-characterized the rifle. They said the rifle was an M-16. Then they dubbed in a shot of automatic rifle fire to make it seem the bear was stopped with a burst from the rifle. The incident is recounted at about 19:00 to 21:30 in the video.

The .223 is more capable than many realize. One .223 round has more energy than most .44 magnum rounds. From alaskareport.com

According to a story in the Fairbanks News-Miner, the polar bear charged straight at Cadzow who didn't have time to lift and sight his rifle.

“I shot from the hip, seven or eight times,” he said. “If I had gotten it to my shoulder, it (bear) would have been on top of me. It happened so quick, by the time it was down, it was about 10 feet from my feet,” according to the News-Miner.

The bear was in good condition. It was not starving.

When facing dangerous opponents, be they men or bears, there is much to be said for rapid, controllable fire at close range. The AR-15 offers those characteristics and 30 round magazines.

©2018 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included

That video on there has been taken down

Originally Posted by Dillinger

The magazine capacity is a plus.

That article is from the States not Canada, and in Canada the max magazine is 5 shots. Five might not be enough for a charging polar bear.

^^Missing tne point, for hunting deer that will be used for meat the last fucking thing you'd want to do is empty a 30 shot clip into it when a single well placed bullet from a high calibre rifle will kill it almost immediately and humanely. As for shooting Polar bears or other dangerous game, that's Nitro Express territory.

^ I'd save that gun for bears

Who am I kidding....Bears scare the bejesus outta me. I'd be buying venisson from Walmart.

Originally Posted by pickel

"You don't need an AR-15 to bring down a deer,"

Most deer hunters would find that idiotic, as an AR-15 round is not nearly lethal enough to bring down a deer instantly and you would be following a blood trail for hours until it bleeds out.

That's really kinda the point though because...

Originally Posted by Headworx

owning one isn't really about hunting deer or they're American, obviously.

Seems to me that Trudeau was just addressing one of usual rote right-wing-NRA-style fallacies.

Hard to see a legitimate and real pressing need for one of these:



unless you're a paranoid loon prepping for a war against your Govt. (in which case you shouldn't have one) or have a really tiny penis and need an extension.

Anyways there's a really good South Park skit on it but this probably isn't the thread for that.

Originally Posted by MarilynMonroe

You don't need a rifle AR47 to shoot a deer. These military type assault rifles have no place in the hands of Canadians who hunt or in the hand of sickos like the sick fuck who shot up all those innocents pretending to be a RCMP.

Holy fuck are you naive. Military type assault weapons are fully automatic and are already banned. And once again the ban would not have stopped the Nova Scotia shooter. He could not legally possess one and they were bought in the States.

And what the fuck is an AR47?

^Fuck you sure don't stop eh. I meant the AR-15, and yes I know that the shooter obtained his weapon illegally, but no matter... we don't want sickos like that in the future to obtain one in Canada. I'm done talking to you. We have different opinions on the matter and that is fine, but I'd guess that many Canadians are happy with Trudeau's decision and I hope things change in regards to handguns as well. At least our government is doing something, whereas the US is doing f all even after all of these senseless mass murders.

Originally Posted by MarilynMonroe

^Fuck you sure don't stop eh.

Says the serial flouncer.

Originally Posted by MarilynMonroe

we don't want sickos like that in the future to obtain one in Canada.

Neither do legal gun owners, that's why he couldn't legally own one. And that's why the money would be better spent fighting the smuggling of them.

Originally Posted by MarilynMonroe

You don't need a rifle AR47 to shoot a deer. These military type assault rifles have no place in the hands of Canadians who hunt or in the hand of sickos like the sick fuck who shot up all those innocents pretending to be a RCMP.

Absolutely right.

Originally Posted by pickel

Holy fuck are you naive.

So, she is naive as well . . . like anyone who doesn't agree with your beliefs, it seems. Semantics on your part don't address the issue, rather are just openings for right-wing paranoid talking points . . . like in the US.

Originally Posted by pickel

And that's why the money would be better spent fighting the smuggling of them.

So crims can get them when they steal them during their b&e . . . nice bit of logic.


No use having speed limits because out-of-towners will disregard them anyway

^The thing with efforts on eradicating smuggling logic, is that the war on smuggling has been an ongoing thing on the Canada/US borders. I live on a border town, and the border crossings are quite strict in regards to checking cars and trying to prevent smuggling. No matter how hard you try to prevent smuggling it does and will happen. There are boats that smuggle across and other ways of course, but I know that over the years, the US/Canadian border has been very strict on people crossing over and checking vehicles etc.

Originally Posted by panama hat

Semantics on your part don't address the issue, rather are just openings for right-wing paranoid talking points . . . like in the US.

Canada is not the US. A lot of non right wingers own guns here. But labeling them paranoid right wingers fits the anti gun crowd talking points.

Originally Posted by panama hat

So crims can get them when they steal them during their b&e . . . nice bit of logic.

They can steal your car and kill someone in a high speed chase too.

I currently don't own any guns. Gave them to my dad when I moved to Thailand. I was planning on getting my license and buying some but covid has put a hold on that.

My main argument in this thread is the way Trudeau banned them. I find it undemocratic, especially because he has a minority government and it's during a pandemic.

If legislation was actually tabled in parliament and a vote was passed, I would accept the outcome.

Originally Posted by pickel

Canada is not the US. A lot of non right wingers own guns here. But labeling them paranoid right wingers fits the anti gun crowd talking points.

Of course it does, as does the reverse. I was just highlighting that broad generalisations like calling a vast majority of the population 'naive' isn't helpful when discussing the issue.

I grew up near the border to Canada, in Michigan and Canadians and Murkins are like chalk and cheese . . . even the 'paranoid right wing wingers'

Originally Posted by pickel

My main argument in this thread is the way Trudeau banned them. I find it undemocratic, especially because he has a minority government and it's during a pandemic.

Well, the timing wasn't chosen by Trudeau, the timing chose him . . . and doesn't he still have to go to legislation to be enshrined in law?

Originally Posted by pickel

If legislation was actually tabled in parliament and a vote was passed, I would accept the outcome.

Like with abortion?


My father had a gun given to him as a welcome present from the police chief, I believe it was, upon moving to Grosse Pointe, Michigan ... and we were foreigners. Gun ownership is far too cavalier in its 'right' . . . and in Canada it isn't enshrined in the constitution or basic law that people can own guns, I believe.

Guns for hunting - no worries, if one must. Keep it (hunting rifle) locked up at the gun club or police station until you go hunting - after you're done, take it back. That's how my uncle in France does it, and his mates. Hunting wild boar/deer requires a certain type of weapon . . . that's all one needs, imho (thank you for debating this rationally and accepting my - at times - 'tic' comments)

Another issue I have with pickel's logic of the government putting more effort into smuggling is that...

This psycho in NS who killed a bunch of people with a rifle he got illegally from the US is a rare thing to happen in Canada. It is pretty rare that we have mass shootings to begin with and secondly, this guy was very odd in that he had a look alike RCMP car in his back yard that he was working on to look identical to the cars the cops drive around. So, he could have ordered the gun online or got it from someone. We don't know how he got it, but it is rare that we have mass shootings with an (illegal) assault style rifle let alone one registered in Canada (which he now can't get anyway).

Originally Posted by pickel

My main argument in this thread is the way Trudeau banned them. I find it undemocratic, especially because he has a minority government and it's during a pandemic.

If legislation was actually tabled in parliament and a vote was passed, I would accept the outcome.

That is ridiculous. Parliament hasn't been open in a long time for any length of time because of Covid.

anyway toot a loo....

Originally Posted by MarilynMonroe

That is ridiculous. Parliament hasn't been open in a long time for any length of time because of Covid.

If only gunshot flew this far over people's heads.

Originally Posted by panama hat

Well, the timing wasn't chosen by Trudeau, the timing chose him . . . and doesn't he still have to go to legislation to be enshrined in law?

Believe me, he chose the timing. And no, it doesn't have to go to legislation to become law.

Originally Posted by panama hat

Like with abortion?

I'm starting to think that you have labeled me as pro life because I believe in gun rights. Ask yourself the same question. Would you accept it? Or do you not really believe in democracy?

Originally Posted by MarilynMonroe

Another issue I have with pickel's logic of the government putting more effort into smuggling is that...

This psycho in NS who killed a bunch of people with a rifle he got illegally from the US is a rare thing to happen in Canada. It is pretty rare that we have mass shootings to begin with and secondly, this guy was very odd in that he had a look alike RCMP car in his back yard that he was working on to look identical to the cars the cops drive around. So, he could have ordered the gun online or got it from someone. We don't know how he got it, but it is rare that we have mass shootings with an (illegal) assault style rifle let alone one registered in Canada (which he now can't get anyway).

So you think we should focus on things that are really rare instead of the smuggled guns which make up most gun crimes in Canada? Some fine logic there.

Originally Posted by MarilynMonroe

That is ridiculous. Parliament hasn't been open in a long time for any length of time because of Covid.

And you think that justifies a minority government that received just 33.1 percent of the popular vote the right to just ram their own laws through? The Liberals are the ones fighting re-opening parliament the most. There's a reason for that, and it ain't the virus.