When police enter your house without a warrant

148 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering

Hurtin Albertan wrote:
Anyways, one justification for guns that can do that much damage would be for big-game hunting, for example moose or elk.

Depending on how exactly you define "more powerful", it's not exactly too hard to find common sorts of hunting rifles that would be "more powerful" than some of the weapons used by the RCMP.  I could get into more specifics but I'm not sure how interested anyone is in that sort of thing.

Likewise I could go on at great length about many, many other things that have been posted here, but I'm a little late to the game on this one, and in the interest of general forum civility I don't see much point in doing so.  I'll wait until another gun topic gets going in the future and hopefully get in early on that one.

I'm still very interested. I know nothing about guns and I am 100% against all of them. At the risk of sending the natives mad with fury, I must mention one thing Justin Trudeau said. He was accused of flip-flopping on the gun registry because he voted for it but said he won't bring it back. When he was challenged he said that when it still existed he wanted it preserved, but now that it is gone it is too divisive to bring back. He believes the way forward is to work with all stakeholders to build consensus.

That makes perfect sense to me, not that gun advocates should get to make the rules, but they should be part of the conversation which is timely.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/09/18/stephen-harper-attacks-justin-tr...

Harper also reached out to gun owners, apparently alluding to a recent decision by the RCMP to ban a previously legal rifle, the Swiss Arms Classic Green carbine.

Harper said it’s completely unacceptable that owners of the weapons should be subject to an “arbitrary stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen.”

Why did the RCMP make that decision?

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:

Why did the RCMP make that decision?

It fell under their very weird method of deciding which guns are more dangerous than others based off scientific and empirical evidence. What colour it is, plastic parts, how you hold it, how scary it looks.

Origionally they designated it as restricted, meaning you need a special permit to use it, you can only use it at registered shooting ranges, need a special permit to transport it.  10 years later after 0 crimes were committed with this $3,500 to $4,000 firearm was moved to the phorhibited list (basically banned).  

There's a few takes on the story how it was brought to the attention of the RCMP but basically one store owner had one of the rifles brought to him (someone was selling it) and the store owner thought it was one of the banned fully-automatic versions, asked the fellow ehere he got it and called the RCMP.  (Some people say it was an attempt by one store owner to get a another store whom he was warring with in trouble with the RCMP).

The RCMP said no it's not the illegal version BUT we forgot to ban this one too 10 years ago (oops)  so we're just going to go ahead and ban it now.  The 5000 or 6000 Canadians who own this $4000 rifle have 6 months to turn the rifle in to be destroyed; they will not be compensated for their loss (for the RCMPs mistake). Anyone who doesn't will be a criminal and face 5 years in prison.

People were pretty upset because they were turned into criminals over night (because they were now in the possession of an illegal weapon), and were out $4000.   And again the weapon has never been used in a crime in Canada so it was hard to see the justification to change it's status to illegal.  

*there's been cases where firearms turned in to the police to be "destroyed" have been resold to the public in order to "

Hurtin Albertan

Suppose I want to start a business importing "modern sporting rifles" (otherwise known as "scary assault weapons") into Canada from MadeUpIstan and then reselling them.   Before I can do this, I do a bunch of paperwork and import one or two guns and send them to the RCMP Firearms Lab for them to take a look at.

The firearms lab then is supposed to make sure these semiautomatic rifles from MadeUpIstan are not "readily convertible" to fully automatic.  They will also use some wierd form of voodoo magic to determine whether these guns should be non-restricted, restricted, or prohibited.

If it's all good, and they are not prohibited, then my business is set to start importing them. 

If the manufacturers in MadeUpIstan used receivers from fully automatic weapons to make my semiautomatic "modern sporting rifles" then these guns are prohibited, regardless of whether or not they could ever be easily converted back to fully automatic.  The fact that the guns are made from fully automatic parts makes them bad.  Even if it's completely impossible to make them fully automatic again they are still bad.

This happened somewhat recently with a batch of Vz 58 rifles from the Czech Republic.  A lot of these rifles are OK in Canada because the Czechs purpose built them from new semiautomatic receivers, but at least 1 batch was made out of converted fully automatic receivers for some reason and you are left with the paradox that one rifle is OK and another almost-exactly-the-same rifle is illegal to own.

Anyways, back to my hypothetical business plan.  We'll assume my manufacturers in MadeUpIstan took the time and effort to use nice, new, semiautomatic only receivers.

Now the RCMP uses more voodoo magic to determine if it is "readily convertible to fully automatic".  The problem is, as far as I know, "readily convertible" is not clearly defined in the law.

Even I will admit that a firearm that can be made fully automatic by the simple addition of a folded paper match into the correct spot may not be in the public's best interests for widespread sale and useage.  There are guns that are this easy, and I will very grudgingly admit they should stay prohibited.

Now, lets say the RCMP firearms lab has a bunch of technicians working around the clock for 6 months on my sample guns from MadeUpIstan, and after 6 months of desperate attempts they finally figure out how to make my sample guns shoot in full automatic mode.

To me, and maybe to most people, that is not even close to being "readily convertible". 

But to the RCMP that is good enough, the guns are prohibited, end of story.

 

6079_Smith_W

Sorry Hurtin Albertan, I don't care. Especially since to me the burden of proof is that there is any reason to allow these weapons at all, and in the case of many of them, I see none.

So these fine points? Meaningless. Especially meaningless given the defensive spin (like SUN News's take) flies in the face of the reality of a gun lobby which is very much on the offensive, and doesn't give a damn about public safety.

I have heard stories about people having similar differences over government prohibition when it comes to animals, and read about some deadly and tragic outcomes in the news. Only know of one case personally, but even so, I don't have much sympathy for that kind of a freedom argument.

 

Pondering

If the RCMP was in error in not banning it then I support their correcting it but I don't think owners should be penalized. At the very least they should be reimbursed for the cost.

Aside from hunting I see no purpose for guns either but they are here to stay for the foreseeable future so while marching for a total ban I think it makes sense to examine if our gun laws are well designed.

I remained concerned that some aspects of the laws are too lax and others too arbitrary.

So what are the basic parameters that should be considered when classifying a gun? I can think of the following.

repeat shooting speed

reloading frequency

type of bullet

distance

The process for importing does seem ineffective, but I am surprised we get guns from Madeupistan. I'm not a fan.  I never really thought about it but I assumed they mainly came from the States or Europe.

What is the difference between an automatic and a semi-automatic?

What is the most powerful gun allowed in private hands in Canada?

Hurtin Albertan

6079_Smith_W:  Fair enough I suppose.  Although I think you should care that the gun laws are very badly written, contain vague language or other legislated provisions which allow the police to abuse their powers without recourse, and are generally full of loopholes and outright contradictions and paradoxes and such.  I would have far fewer objections to our current gun laws if they made sense.  And as others have explained before, and as I will again, banning "modern sporting rifles" or "military style assault weapons" or whatever you want to call them would probably have very little effect on reducing gun violence.

Pondering:  For gun classifications, there are different ways to go about it.  On a very broad level I am actually fairly supportive of having different licences for long guns (rifles, shotguns, things that need 2 hands to operate) versus handguns (small, easily concealable if you so desire, can operate with one hand).  Kind of like the way our gun laws were pre-1990's in regards to non-restricted firearms and restricted firearms.  Although admitting to this would cause me much personal abuse on other gun websites and forums I also frequent.

For some background, Canada has had gun laws restricting the ownership of hand guns for almost 80 years now.  They date back to the 1930's when the PC's were in power, the country was in the grips of the Depression, and leftist political and labour groups were growing in popularity.  Winnipeg General Strike, birth of the CCF, and such.  The next part may be a bit of speculation on my part, not sure if I can find a good source to back up my claims but I believe that since handguns are so easily concealable, the government of the time feared some sort of insurrection or armed rebellion by leftist groups and decided it was a good time to pass some laws to tighten up on who could buy a handgun.

Anyways, 80 years of handgun restrictions have led to a far different gun culture in this country as compared to our comrades to the south.  For example, in my family 3 out of 5 owned long guns, but only 1 of us also had a handgun and that was my dad, who was in the RCMP.  One of my uncles owns handguns.  Other than that I know lots of people who own shotguns and/or rifles but really not that many who also own handguns, even considering I am a gun nut who is friends with lots of other gun nuts.  This may be a huge overgeneralization on my part, I may be able to ferret out some sources to back up my claims, but I am going to claim that while Canadians and Americans are just as likely to own guns, the Canadian is more likely to own long guns and the American is more likely to own handguns.

Compare gun crimes in a Canadian city with an American city.  Overall the crime rates might be the same, but way more shooting deaths in the American city due to the ease of ownershipo of handguns in the USA.

So to start, one type of license to own long guns and one type of license to own handguns, much like it is now in Canada.

Other countries have various different licenses for different types of long guns.  Australia for sure, Norway I think.  I am not entirely convinced this really accomplishes much, but I would not be dogmatically opposed to the idea assuming that the reasoning behind it was clear, made sense, not full of contradictions or other stupidities, and that people would still be allowed to own a "more dangerous firearm" providing they meet some conditions that are not overly unrealistic, or prohibitively expensive, and so on and so forth, and that ownership of pretty much anything was still legally possible.

I put "more dangerous firearm" in quotations because all guns are equally dangerous when you get right down to it.  For example, the Cumbria shooting in 2010 in the UK.  Not many people aside from gun control extremists would claim that the UK in 2010 did not have strong enough gun control laws.

MadeUpIstan was, I thought, an obvious Made Up country.  I suppose I could have easily used a real country or a more obvious fake country to make my points.

More oversimplifications, but generally semiautomatics shoot one bullet with one pull of the trigger, while fully automatics shoot many bullets with one pull of the trigger.  Maybe an easy way to explain it is bang bang bang bang bang click compared to ratatatatatatatat click.

I'd have to guess on your last question, but it's probably some obscure World War 2 era antitank rifle, like a Solothurn chambered in 20mm (!!!)or a Russian PTRS41 chambered in 14.5mm. 

 

cco

Pondering wrote:

When he was challenged he said that when it still existed he wanted it preserved, but now that it is gone it is too divisive to bring back.

I absolutely despise the political victor's justice where someone who's won a battle dismisses any idea of reopening it because it's "divisive". Clearly the solution to political division is to tell everyone they must accept every controversial decision, because the fact some people didn't like it is reason in and of itself to avoid any revisiting.

6079_Smith_W

Hurtin Albertan wrote:

Although I think you should care that the gun laws are very badly written, contain vague language or other legislated provisions which allow the police to abuse their powers without recourse, and are generally full of loopholes and outright contradictions and paradoxes and such.

I do care about those laws being badly written, and I also care about the arrogant and manipulative way they were brought in by the Liberal government. I think that second fact - more than anything in the law -  is a big reason why the registry has been killed.

And I have been pretty vocal about both.

My concerns are public safety and unfair discrimination against people. In this case (most recently the question of larger magazines), I don't see unfair discrimination so much as a wedge to bring potentially more dangerous weapons in.

But if you do consider it unfair (and in theory I do get the argument) my preferred solution is to ban the lot. That's why I say I don't care about the technical points

 

Unionist

cco wrote:
Pondering wrote:

When he was challenged he said that when it still existed he wanted it preserved, but now that it is gone it is too divisive to bring back.

I absolutely despise the political victor's justice where someone who's won a battle dismisses any idea of reopening it because it's "divisive". Clearly the solution to political division is to tell everyone they must accept every controversial decision, because the fact some people didn't like it is reason in and of itself to avoid any revisiting.

Well, according to the RCMP, we're still ok here for the moment, cco:

RCMP website wrote:
Until further notice, due to ongoing litigation, Quebec residents are required to register non-restricted firearms with the Canadian Firearms Program.

Quebecers are harder to divide, I guess, as long as the issue isn't independence.

 

 

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:

If the RCMP was in error in not banning it then I support their correcting it but I don't think owners should be penalized. At the very least they should be reimbursed for the cost.

The outcry was slipt over citizens having their property taken away without compensation and also frustration at the rules in which the RCMP classify weapons in the first place.

Quote:

Aside from hunting I see no purpose for guns either but they are here to stay for the foreseeable future so while marching for a total ban I think it makes sense to examine if our gun laws are well designed.

I remained concerned that some aspects of the laws are too lax and others too arbitrary.

So what are the basic parameters that should be considered when classifying a gun? I can think of the following.

repeat shooting speed

reloading frequency

type of bullet

distance

Good question. I don't think the examples you gave would be effective ways of classifying a firearm. Shooting speed and releading speed vary not only from weapon to weapon but person to person.  A common held belief is the faster a gun shooters the more dangerous it is but at the same time the faster a gun shoots the less accurate it is.  I'll respond to Smith about reloading times as a factor for public safety, you might be interested to hear it too.

Quote:

What is the difference between an automatic and a semi-automatic?

Say you have a gun that holds 30 bullets. A semi-automatic gun would shoot a bullet every time you pull the trigger.  You have to release the trigger and then squeeze it again to fire again.   An automatic firearm would give you the ability to just squeeze the trigger and fire all 30 bullets.

 

Quote:

What is the most powerful gun allowed in private hands in Canada?

I'm not sure about the most powerful how I think you're percieving it.   .50 caliber guns are available. These are used by the military to shoot down planes (worldwar2), to shoot armored vehicles and people from very far away.  Canadians use them for target shooting and probably big game animals.

If you apply for a gun license, pass the background check pass the safety course you could go out and buy one for $5000 or $10'000.  

To date 0 have been used in crimes in Canada making it one of the most powerful but safest firearms available.

 

 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

 

My concerns are public safety and unfair discrimination against people. In this case (most recently the question of larger magazines), I don't see unfair discrimination so much as a wedge to bring potentially more dangerous weapons in.

 

 

I know you don't care for finer technical points but tell me if this makes sense. Magazine capacity is one of those compromise solutions that's all show and does nothing for public safety.  Semi-automatic weapons are limited to 5 bullets and pistols to 10. It seems like a logical way to make guns less dangerous- make the magazines smaller.   Firearm owners can still use magazines but gun control advocates get a (percieved) victory too.   Theres a few problems with the logic that smaller magazines = safer though.

1. There are videos  on youtube where someone takes people of various different skill levels and has them shoot pistols.   In an example they give them 5 magazines that hold 15 bullets each and have them shoot one magazine after another.  They then give them 7 or 8 magazines that only hold 10 bullets each and again have them shoot.   There is  no difference in the amount of time it takes someone to shoot 75-80 bullets with full capacity magazines and someone to shoot the same number of bullets with smaller magazines (changing magazines more often).

2. (I know no one cares about studies unless the study supports their argument but still). Shootings were looked at in the states between gunmen who had pistols with full capacity magazines (15-17 bullets) and some that actually used magazines that were limited to 10 bullets.   Again there was no discerenable difference in stats with the shootings.  A magazine takes a second or two to change. Someone who had capped pistol magazines still shot 80 rounds before stopping.

3. I mentioned before it's a tiny rivet that you can pop out with a butter knife. Anyone who wants to change a 5 bullet magazine into a 30 bullet magazine can do so with very little effort which begs the question whats the magazine capacaity trying to acomplish? Laws like this only effect people who choose to obey the law.

 

 

Firearms and gun control is a difficult debate to have with people who don't think Canadains should have access to firearms in the first place because their stance is simply Canadians shouldn't have guns end of story.  Not much room for finding a working solution that make both sides of the argument happy.

6079_Smith_W

We went around this already, Paladin. A couple of times.

Ban anything over 5 still  sounds like a good solution to me. That people can change them? Interesting, but none of those arguments is a valid reason for allowing higher capacity.

To me that argument would entail there being some demonstrated need for people to have clips that hold 30 bullets. Other than mass murder, I can't think of one.

 

 

Maysie Maysie's picture

Slight drift from the gun topic.

Number of police in Canada growing despite ‘dramatic’ crime drop

Quote:

Between 2001 and 2012, the number of police officers per 100,000 Canadians increased nearly 9 per cent — amidst a crime rate decline of 26 per cent, according to author Livio Di Matteo, a Lakehead University economist.

Bucking the trend, the number of Toronto police officers per 100,000 declined five per cent over the same period, while crime in the city dropped 41 per cent — making it “an interesting example of how more police doesn’t always mean less crime,” Di Matteo said in an interview.

When we look at stats that indicate how disproportionate Indigenous people and radicalized people are represented in charges, arrests and jail time, perhaps it's time to ask the question: aside from racial profiling, what exactly do the police do that prevents crime?

Bacchus

Police do nothing to 'prevent' crime except by finding and arresting criminals after they have committed a crime which may deter others

Unless you mean corraling protesters and 'kettling' them or just mass aresting them to 'prevent' them committing crimes (yes that is sarcasm and not aimed at you)

Paladin1

Smith, I totally disagree with your stance but neither of us are budging so I guess we will just have to leave it at that.

 

Maysie good point. 

I have a number of friends that are police and I haven't ruled that out as a possible carrer change down the road but I also have some serious misgivings about some police behavior in Canada.

6079_Smith_W

Nope. Cops don't prevent crime any more than the death penalty does. That doesn't mean there is no need for police, just that more cops and jails  is not a solution to what are essentially social problems.

And Paladin. Yeah, I agree. I'm not trying to change your mind.

 

6079_Smith_W

Hey.... we just had the fire marshalls show up at the shop today to do an inspection. No warning. No warrant. They just walked in the door to inspect the fire safety in our place. Theyalso said they'd  be back to make sure there's proper clearance in front of our panel. I felt so intimidated.

Not only that, there was a bunch of them combing the area, so obviously it wasn't suspicion of any sort of infraction. THey were just targetting small businesses with some sort of fishing expedition.

Maybe SUN News will come write an article about how we are subject to discrimination and infringement on our rights that no one else in Canada has to suffer.

 

Paladin1

I'm glad you made it through okay!

You could have faced 5 years in prison if your permit was 1 day expired; it's always nice when the government gives you permission to break the law so long as you pay them.  

Did you open up your lockers and let them go through your computers and emails since you have nothing to hide? They love cooperation like that.

6079_Smith_W

Has anyone ever been charged and received that sentence for a one-day infraction?

And I looked up the rule about being obliged to let the insprctors use your computer if they ask. That seems kind of cagey to me, and if I were in that position, I would probably conveniently arrange to hve mine broken and at the shop. Bad rule, IMO.

Doesn't have any bearing on the principle of an inspection regime though.

 

Paladin1

I'm not sure.   I know a man was charged with careless storage after some punks firebombed his house, he shot at them, called 911 and carelessly left his gun on the kitchen table while fearing for his life waiting for the police to show up. It's not beyond the realm of possibility.

 

Why would you break your laptop on purpose just to avoid the police being able to look at it?  That's suspicious, what are you hiding on there? Something you're afraid of the police seeing?   Agreed bad rule.

 

Gonna go off on a tanget here since we don't agree on 30 round magazines :)

Lets say I'm a three time convicted child mollester, responsible for assaulting children and distributing thousands of images of children.   You have 10 shotguns, you don't hunt you just think they're cool and you like buying different parts for them and posting pictures of it on pinterest- you also have a spotless record

Don't you find it weird the police need a warrant signed by a judge to come into my house and search my laptop but they can enter into your house without a warrant? On top of that the police do a background check on you every single day to see if you've broken any sort of law, yet they don't do the same for me?

6079_Smith_W

He shot at them? I'm surprised careless storage is all he got charged with.

And no, Paladin. I'm not saying break your damned laptop. But if you have notice it is easy enough to get around that admittedly intrusive rule by leaving it at the office, or pulling out the RAM.

And we went around that last bit quite a few times already. My pointing out the difference between those situations is the same this time as it was then.

 

Pondering

Paladin1 wrote:
Don't you find it weird the police need a warrant signed by a judge to come into my house and search my laptop but they can enter into your house without a warrant? On top of that the police do a background check on you every single day to see if you've broken any sort of law, yet they don't do the same for me?

No, because the registration of the firearms is "the warrant". It's the confirmation that you do have those weapons and that you agree to have them enter your home to verify compliance. It's a condition of ownership.

No such situation exists with a laptop.

 

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

He shot at them? I'm surprised careless storage is all he got charged with.

If you had a gun and I was throwing molitov cocktails at you and your family would you shoot at me or would you hide in your house and hope the police show up in in time?

Quote:
And no, Paladin. I'm not saying break your damned laptop. But if you have notice it is easy enough to get around that admittedly intrusive rule by leaving it at the office, or pulling out the RAM.

But you did suggest you break your own laptop in order to avoid police gaining access to it.

Quote:
if I were in that position, I would probably conveniently arrange to hve mine broken

If you have nothing to hide there is no reason NOT to let the police search it. Why would you arrange to have it away from your person when the police are there?

Quote:

And we went around that last bit quite a few times already. My pointing out the difference between those situations is the same this time as it was then.

 

okay.

 

Pondering wrote:

No, because the registration of the firearms is "the warrant". It's the confirmation that you do have those weapons and that you agree to have them enter your home to verify compliance. It's a condition of ownership.

No such situation exists with a laptop.

 

Why should a convicted felon require a judge to sign off a search warrant and a citizen who has never broken a law not?

Pondering

Paladin1 wrote:

Why should a convicted felon require a judge to sign off a search warrant and a citizen who has never broken a law not?

Sometimes I think it could be a condition of release, but if not, it is because they are deemed to have paid their due to society.

While some people do use guns for target practice the purpose of guns is to kill. Owning a gun is privilege that requires meeting obligations including allowing inspection of storage arrangements.

I don't know what the law actually allows. In the situation cited in this thread they sent him multiple letters requesting a meeting and he had 10 guns in a condo. I wouldn't have blamed police for showing up fully armed.

Guns are dangerous on purpose. I understand guns in hunting territory but not in urban areas. To me it just isn't worth the risk having them around. That some people enjoy target shooting, or would like to collect them, isn't a good enough reason for regular citizens to own them and store them at residencial properties. To me it is no different than people keeping dangerous exotic animals. Animals can escape, guns can be stolen.

Inspection as a condition of firearm ownership seems reasonable to me.

Pondering

cco wrote:
Pondering wrote:

When he was challenged he said that when it still existed he wanted it preserved, but now that it is gone it is too divisive to bring back.

I absolutely despise the political victor's justice where someone who's won a battle dismisses any idea of reopening it because it's "divisive". Clearly the solution to political division is to tell everyone they must accept every controversial decision, because the fact some people didn't like it is reason in and of itself to avoid any revisiting.

He didn't dismiss it. He said that for now there are many things to work on that Canadians are united on so tackle those first. Concerning the gun registry it's necessary to start over from scratch; to meet with all the stake-holders to hammer something out.

That is in part why I am finding this discussion interesting. While it is true gun advocates in this thread are arguing against some of the current regulations Paladin has said that storage laws are not strict enough. He has said that guns are not being judged by the right criteria therefore we are banning the wrong guns while letting more powerful guns through.

It seems to me that gun advocates should be sitting at the table.

Bringing everyone to the table should result in more effective gun laws not more slack gun laws. Treating gun advocates like nutcases who don't care about mass murderers as long as they can keep their guns is bigotry. I am positive the grand majority of them are perfectly normal people with families that they love and they don't want criminals to have guns either.

Gun advocates can't dictate policy but they can help design policy that is more effective at meetings the actual goal of keeping us safer.

6079_Smith_W

Hey Paladin, I said this, about getting a call for an inspection, and not wanting to have a laptop used:

Quote:

I would probably conveniently arrange to hve mine broken and at the shop.

I just figured you could read between the lines and realize that was a mildly humorous euphemism for having your laptop elsewhere, missing its cord, or otherwise unavailable.

But actually, do you have the section in legislation or ruling which spells out that owners must let inspectors use their computers? I only found one reference in a gun forum. As I said, It seem unfair to me. But since you raise it, I would be interested in what it actually says. Still doesnt have anything to do with the legality of inspections though.

And sorry, but is this the wild west? Molotov cocktails? I may not know as much as you, but I do know how far a 22 bullet can travel, and you're seriously talking about shooting at people? Discharge a firearm (or even hold a firearm while committing an alleged crime) and you are likely to get charged for it. It doesn't matter what someone else is trying to do to you.

That's what this guy found out last year. He goes to trial tomorrow:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/snowmobilers-threatened-with-gun...

You want to know where that kind of thinking has gotten people? Stand your ground laws,  and unarmed non-white people getting murdered by armed white people because they feel "threatened", and getting off scott free.

 

 

 

 

Pondering

Hurtin Albertan wrote:
Pondering:  For gun classifications, there are different ways to go about it.  On a very broad level I am actually fairly supportive of having different licences for long guns (rifles, shotguns, things that need 2 hands to operate) versus handguns (small, easily concealable if you so desire, can operate with one hand).  Kind of like the way our gun laws were pre-1990's in regards to non-restricted firearms and restricted firearms.  Although admitting to this would cause me much personal abuse on other gun websites and forums I also frequent.

That sounds reasonable but what changed in the 90s? (lol, I wasn't exactly cheered on in this thread either, seems no one wants us to talk to each other.)

Hurtin Albertan wrote:
Anyways, 80 years of handgun restrictions have led to a far different gun culture in this country as compared to our comrades to the south.  For example, in my family 3 out of 5 owned long guns, but only 1 of us also had a handgun and that was my dad, who was in the RCMP.  One of my uncles owns handguns.  Other than that I know lots of people who own shotguns and/or rifles but really not that many who also own handguns, even considering I am a gun nut who is friends with lots of other gun nuts.  This may be a huge overgeneralization on my part, I may be able to ferret out some sources to back up my claims, but I am going to claim that while Canadians and Americans are just as likely to own guns, the Canadian is more likely to own long guns and the American is more likely to own handguns.

That makes sense to me. I do have a problem with people walking around with concealed weapons.

Hurtin Albertan wrote:
So to start, one type of license to own long guns and one type of license to own handguns, much like it is now in Canada.

Good start.

Hurtin Albertan wrote:
I put "more dangerous firearm" in quotations because all guns are equally dangerous when you get right down to it.  For example, the Cumbria shooting in 2010 in the UK.  Not many people aside from gun control extremists would claim that the UK in 2010 did not have strong enough gun control laws.

Not even close. Some guns do far more damage faster to more targets than other guns.

Hurtin Albertan wrote:
MadeUpIstan was, I thought, an obvious Made Up country.  I suppose I could have easily used a real country or a more obvious fake country to make my points.

lol, I did know you made it up, I just figured you were using an example that indicated the "---instan" part of the world. I never thought about where guns actually come from. I vaguely assumed there were a couple of hundred manufacturers at most, or maybe just ten manufacturers, and people bought them from western countries. Now I am guessing that I am off base on that.

It didn't occur to me that the RCMP actually examines guns for import and had I known I would have assumed that manufacturers would send them over.

Hurtin Albertan wrote:
I'd have to guess on your last question, but it's probably some obscure World War 2 era antitank rifle, like a Solothurn chambered in 20mm (!!!)or a Russian PTRS41 chambered in 14.5mm.

I should have realized that I couldn't understand the answer to my question. On reflection I realize it has to be powerful enough to kill a moose which must be pretty powerful. Is anything bigger than what you need to kill a moose legal?

Completely random question, at some point in time guns became all squared off, even the barrel is square. Why? Is it just a style choice?

Pondering

Paladin1 wrote:
Firearms and gun control is a difficult debate to have with people who don't think Canadains should have access to firearms in the first place because their stance is simply Canadians shouldn't have guns end of story.  Not much room for finding a working solution that make both sides of the argument happy. 

True, but if we can insist that the Palestinians and Israeli must have peace talks then we ought to be able to discuss a comparatively insignificant topic with mutual respect. Respect comes from making the effort to see where the other person is coming from and recognizing that negotiations means one side won't get it all their way.

If we understand what each sides primary concerns are we can go farther than if we just do battle blindly. Battling blindly seems to have resulted in ineffective laws being passed while not passing laws that would be more effective.

Paladin1 wrote:

I'm not sure about the most powerful how I think you're percieving it.   .50 caliber guns are available. These are used by the military to shoot down planes (worldwar2), to shoot armored vehicles and people from very far away.  Canadians use them for target shooting and probably big game animals.

If you apply for a gun license, pass the background check pass the safety course you could go out and buy one for $5000 or $10'000.  

To date 0 have been used in crimes in Canada making it one of the most powerful but safest firearms available.

 

That's interesting. Extreme cost and course requirements are limiting but it doesn't mean the firearm is safer. It's more like the ownership parameters are making it rarer to own therefore there is less chance of it being used illegally.

Paladin1 wrote:
2. (I know no one cares about studies unless the study supports their argument but still). Shootings were looked at in the states between gunmen who had pistols with full capacity magazines (15-17 bullets) and some that actually used magazines that were limited to 10 bullets.   Again there was no discerenable difference in stats with the shootings.  A magazine takes a second or two to change. Someone who had capped pistol magazines still shot 80 rounds before stopping.  

That is very counter-intuitive but somethings are.

Paladin1 wrote:
3. I mentioned before it's a tiny rivet that you can pop out with a butter knife. Anyone who wants to change a 5 bullet magazine into a 30 bullet magazine can do so with very little effort which begs the question whats the magazine capacaity trying to acomplish? Laws like this only effect people who choose to obey the law.   

Interesting point.

 

Pondering

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson_College_shooting#Weapons

Gill was armed with a Beretta Cx4 Storm carbine,[17] a Glock 9mm handgun, and a 14-inch Norinco HP9-1 shotgun. He fired sixty shots, ten of which were fired outside the school. With the exception of five shots from his pistol, including the one to kill himself, all the shots came from the carbine.[18]...

All of the weapons Gill had in his possession can be legally purchased and owned by a civilian in Canada. As manufactured by Beretta, the Cx4 Storm is a semi-automatic, pistol-calibre centre-fire carbine with a 422mm barrel length. As such, it is categorized as "restricted" in Canada. Any person with a Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL) with restricted-class privileges may purchase this weapon, subject to the approval of the Chief Firearms Officer of the respective province.[19] Kimveer Gill did in fact have a restricted-class PAL and his weapons were registered with the Canadian gun registry. Therefore, he owned the weapons legally under Canadian law[20] though he broke the law by not obtaining an Authorization To Transport (ATT) to bring the firearm to the school and by discharging it outside of an approved range.

The above should not be possible. What would you suggest as a way to prevent it? Or do you just think it can't be prevented?

What did he have to do to buy the weapons legally?

jjuares

Pondering wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:
Firearms and gun control is a difficult debate to have with people who don't think Canadains should have access to firearms in the first place because their stance is simply Canadians shouldn't have guns end of story.  Not much room for finding a working solution that make both sides of the argument happy. 

True, but if we can insist that the Palestinians and Israeli must have peace talks then we ought to be able to discuss a comparatively insignificant topic with mutual respect. Respect comes from making the effort to see where the other person is coming from and recognizing that negotiations means one side won't get it all their way.

If we understand what each sides primary concerns are we can go farther than if we just do battle blindly. Battling blindly seems to have resulted in ineffective laws being passed while not passing laws that would be more effective.

Paladin1 wrote:

I'm not sure about the most powerful how I think you're percieving it.   .50 caliber guns are available. These are used by the military to shoot down planes (worldwar2), to shoot armored vehicles and people from very far away.  Canadians use them for target shooting and probably big game animals.

If you apply for a gun license, pass the background check pass the safety course you could go out and buy one for $5000 or $10'000.  

To date 0 have been used in crimes in Canada making it one of the most powerful but safest firearms available.

 

That's interesting. Extreme cost and course requirements are limiting but it doesn't mean the firearm is safer. It's more like the ownership parameters are making it rarer to own therefore there is less chance of it being used illegally.

Paladin1 wrote:
2. (I know no one cares about studies unless the study supports their argument but still). Shootings were looked at in the states between gunmen who had pistols with full capacity magazines (15-17 bullets) and some that actually used magazines that were limited to 10 bullets.   Again there was no discerenable difference in stats with the shootings.  A magazine takes a second or two to change. Someone who had capped pistol magazines still shot 80 rounds before stopping.  

That is very counter-intuitive but somethings are.

Paladin1 wrote:
3. I mentioned before it's a tiny rivet that you can pop out with a butter knife. Anyone who wants to change a 5 bullet magazine into a 30 bullet magazine can do so with very little effort which begs the question whats the magazine capacaity trying to acomplish? Laws like this only effect people who choose to obey the law.   

Interesting point.

 


And really why is the ownership of nuclear tactical weapons illegal? That is so unfair.

Paladin1

6079_Smith_W wrote:

 

I just figured you could read between the lines and realize that was a mildly humorous euphemism for having your laptop elsewhere, missing its cord, or otherwise unavailable.

Sorry Smith. I felt you were being sarcastic with the comment you made about the fireinspection so I harped on you over the laptop comment.  As far as I know that information you have is incorrect. I don't think police or inspectors can look into someones laptop without a search warrant, I'd have to confirm.   My comments about having nothing to hide stem from earlier comments about cooperating with the police if you have nothing to hide and where would you draw the line. Letting them search your car? Search your pockets? Search your house, laptop, emails? 

Quote:

And sorry, but is this the wild west? Molotov cocktails? I may not know as much as you, but I do know how far a 22 bullet can travel, and you're seriously talking about shooting at people? Discharge a firearm (or even hold a firearm while committing an alleged crime) and you are likely to get charged for it. It doesn't matter what someone else is trying to do to you.

Wildwest is right. Thompson had people throwing firebombs at his house- here's the story.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/01/20/man-faces-jail-after-protecting-...

 

Canada is actually very lenient towards citizens using firearms to defend themselves. (police and storage laws are different). There is a lot of leeway judges can employ when sentencing someone and people actually defend themselves in Canada without getting charged.

Quote:

That's what this guy found out last year. He goes to trial tomorrow:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/snowmobilers-threatened-with-gun...

I remember following that story pretty closely. It's a boiling issue between farmers(and land owners) and snomobiles.   Both sides actually have some very good arguments. Farmers and land owners for example have been having issues for years of snowmobilers tresspassing on their land, destroying their properity (driving over fences) or in some cases killing livestock & family pets.  They say police don't take the charges of tresspassing seriously and don't really do anything about it.  

I think the farmer was very much in the wrong in this situation and should be charged heavily. He brought a firearm to someone elses properity to confront the snowmobilers.  Regardless of how upset he was he was in the wrong. He also physically assaulted the guy on the sled by slapping him in the head, kicking his sled and at one point the farmer starts to bring his weapon up towards the other guy in an offensive manner but then stops.

 

 

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson_College_shooting#Weapons

Gill was armed with a Beretta Cx4 Storm carbine,[17] a Glock 9mm handgun, and a 14-inch Norinco HP9-1 shotgun. He fired sixty shots, ten of which were fired outside the school. With the exception of five shots from his pistol, including the one to kill himself, all the shots came from the carbine.[18]...

All of the weapons Gill had in his possession can be legally purchased and owned by a civilian in Canada. As manufactured by Beretta, the Cx4 Storm is a semi-automatic, pistol-calibre centre-fire carbine with a 422mm barrel length. As such, it is categorized as "restricted" in Canada. Any person with a Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL) with restricted-class privileges may purchase this weapon, subject to the approval of the Chief Firearms Officer of the respective province.[19] Kimveer Gill did in fact have a restricted-class PAL and his weapons were registered with the Canadian gun registry. Therefore, he owned the weapons legally under Canadian law[20] though he broke the law by not obtaining an Authorization To Transport (ATT) to bring the firearm to the school and by discharging it outside of an approved range.

The above should not be possible. What would you suggest as a way to prevent it? Or do you just think it can't be prevented?

What did he have to do to buy the weapons legally?

Pondering,

In a situation like that I don't think there is anything you can do short of banning private ownership of firearms (which doesn't stop them from being brought in illegally) or perhaps catching some kind of red flag mental health issue this guy may have had.

The man in your example did everything that was legally required to purchase a firearm.  Some of the firearms he used were restricted meaning it was illegal for him to use it anywhere other than an approved shooting range- obviously that didn't stop him.

6079_Smith_W

Yup, I know about the snowmobile issue. I remember about 15 years back it got to the point where someone sank a metal bar into the middle of an official trail. Fortunately no one was killed. I know it is a multi-sided issue, but my sympathies are far more with the landowners, not to mention people (and their dogs) who just like to walk in the woods without expecting it to be like the middle of a freeway.

More than anything I blame the whole marketing and culture around these machines that now (didn't used to) have power and speed similar to motorcycles. Not to mention the fact they allow people who sometimes don't have a clue what they are doing far further back into the bush than they have any business going.

And based on your comment I looked andI DID find an online reference - some lawyer on a gun forum claiming that if inspectors asked you were obliged to let them use your laptop. But only that one. That's why I asked if you had any background. Is it real or just bullshit speculation (an interpretation of the "must assist" thing). I wouldn't be surprised if it was in there.

Though it begs the question that if a gun owner must assist, why the guy in that news piece wasn't charged for refusing to allow the inspection. That's the thing about these maximum penalties; how often are they applied, or even used as the basis for a charge?

(edit)

Actually I was being sarcastic in the first instance. Honestly I do completely reject the interpretation in that news piece that these inspections are at all out of line, or amount to some sort of persecution. And that's not saying there aren't things I consider problematic about our gun laws (my main concerns are around the FAC). But inspections generally, and restrictions on firearms  aren't among them.

Paladin1

I'm with you about the Sleds vs Landowners. I've seen a lot of cases where there is zero respect for someones private property and they think because there is snow on the ground they can drive where ever they want.  In my home town there were some cases of steel wires being string up across trails. If memory serves me right someone was seriously hurt a few years ago and I work with a guy who, at the age of 16, witness his friend get decapitated by a wire across a trail.

 

I'm pretty sure the lawyer you mentioned was wrong, yes.   In hindsight yes the guy in the story should have cooperated with the police. I was more insensed with the storage and inspection rules as well as how the police behaved.

I'm actually a big supporter for strict, intelligent, storage rules. Too many children getting a hold of their parents firearms and theives taking poorly secured guns.  I've gone above and beyond the storage requirements for my firearms. They're locked in a vault thats hidden well out of sight and each firearm has both a trigger lock and cable lock- neihter of which are requirements for storage when using a vault.  I have a "dummy" vault set up in plain sight and I have cameras inside both of my vaults that turn on and begin recording anytime the door is opened.   Legally all I need is a trigger lock on a gun and I can leave it under my couch, or hanging on a wall.

Hurtin Albertan

Few more points:

Everybody always blames the Liberals but the tightening of gun control laws actually started in 1991 under the Mulroney Gov't, when Kim Campbell was Justice Minister.  They had a bill C80 that went nowhere in 1990 for whatever reason, then C17 became law in late '91 and seems to have been a rewrite of the older C80.  Contained much of the same stuff near as I can tell.  Bill C68 came in under the Liberals in 1995 and brought the gun registry among other things.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/pol-leg/hist/con-eng.htm

Back to the gun inspection stuff, it is all covered under sections 101 to 105 of the Firearms Act.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/f-11.6/page-29.html#docCont

Some of the stuff we are talking about is in section 102, if you can't follow the link I'll do some copy/pasting here:

  • 102. (1) Subject to section 104, for the purpose of ensuring compliance with this Act and the regulations, an inspector may at any reasonable time enter and inspect any place where the inspector believes on reasonable grounds a business is being carried on or there is a record of a business, any place in which the inspector believes on reasonable grounds there is a gun collection or a record in relation to a gun collection or any place in which the inspector believes on reasonable grounds there is a prohibited firearm or there are more than 10 firearms and may

    • (a) open any container that the inspector believes on reasonable grounds contains a firearm or other thing in respect of which this Act or the regulations apply;

    • (b) examine any firearm and examine any other thing that the inspector finds and take samples of it;

    • (c) conduct any tests or analyses or take any measurements; and

    • (d) require any person to produce for examination or copying any records, books of account or other documents that the inspector believes on reasonable grounds contain information that is relevant to the enforcement of this Act or the regulations.

  • Marginal note:Operation of data processing systems and copying equipment

    (2) In carrying out an inspection of a place under subsection (1), an inspector may

    • (a) use or cause to be used any data processing system at the place to examine any data contained in or available to the system;

    • (b) reproduce any record or cause it to be reproduced from the data in the form of a print-out or other intelligible output and remove the print-out or other output for examination or copying; and

    • (c) use or cause to be used any copying equipment at the place to make copies of any record, book of account or other document.

  • So in my non-expert opinion, if they think you are operating a business as seems to be the case in the video which started off this topic, and they know you are selling guns or gun parts over the internet, then it seems reasonable that they would want to go poking about in your computer.  Legally I'd say they would be limited in their search for gun related stuff only, just as in their physical search they are limited to gun related stuff and should only be searching for guns in places where they have reasonable grounds to believe guns are.  But I'm not a lawyer.

    Anyways I'm curious how 9 guns is just fine but 10 guns suddenly opens you up for warrantless searches.  And now that we have gotten rid of the gun registry, how would they ever know when someone goes from 9 guns to 10 or 15 or 20?  Oh, wait, they could do some "good old fashioned police work" like they should be doing in the first place.

    I would be more than happy to see the warrantless search provisions removed completely from future gun laws, or at worst limited solely to businesses.

     

    Hurtin Albertan

    And back to pondering's questions about just what kind of stuff is legally available for purchase, and whether or not it can kill a moose.

    There are several .50 rifles that are popular for long distance shooting, these probably weigh at least 20 pounds for the rifle and they shoot a really big bullet that is 0.50 inches in diameter, or 12.7mm, the bullet goes about as quickly as most other rifle bullets but because it is so big and heavy, it is going to hit with a lot more energy.  Nobody I have ever heard of uses these for anything other than shooting at targets at gun ranges, although I suppose you could lug one around the countryside and use it on big game animals. 

    Antitank rifles are obsolete weapons dating back from the 1920's and 1930's when tanks or other armoured vehicles were not nearly as big and heavily armoured as they are nowadays.  In WW I the Germans made the first antitank rifle that I know of, basically it was a king sized version of the rifle that their soldiers used, the idea was to shoot a really big bullet at the tanks of the day in hopes that it would punch through the armour plating yet still be "small" enough for someone to carry around on the battlefield, as compared to the traditional approach to tanks which involved shooting at them with a cannon, which is not so small or portable.

    Armies continued to develop antitank rifles through the 1930's, then pretty much gave up on the idea since everybody started making their tanks with heavier armour. 

    So, for example, you can buy an old Soviet PTRS 41 antitank rifle, it weighs somewhere around 40 pounds and shoots a really big bullet that is about 0.57 inches in diameter, or 14.5mm.  Hard part seems to be finding ammunition for these things.  Pretty similar to the British Boys antitank rifle which weighs around 35 pounds and shoots a .55 inch bullet, also pretty hard to find ammunition in this calibre nowadays.

    I suppose people mainly buy them to fill a niche in their collection, or for the sheer novelty factor of owning something like an antitank rifle, but I suppose if the moose you were hunting suddenly got inside a 1930's era tank you might still be able to fill your freezer after all.

    6079_Smith_W

    @ Hurtin Albertan

    My objection to the Liberals is not stricter laws, but the fact that they used it as an election ploy in a way that divided urban and rural voters - putting in charge of the registry a minister of justice who said openly that only cops and soldiers should have guns, drawing up legislation that cast suspicion and criminalized based on financial status, academic status, mental health.

    I remember covering a local reform party meeting in the mid 90s where people were absolutely freaking out about C-13, and vowing to hide their guns. While I have no sympathy for their politics, or their flouting of the law, I think their outrage was completely justified, given how Chretien handled the issue.

    Thing is, it didn't have to be that way.

    Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

    jjuares

    I can see that some people really love their guns. But the question you should ask is: Do they love you back?

    Pondering

    Paladin1 wrote:

    Pondering wrote:

    Quote:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson_College_shooting#Weapons

    Gill was armed with a Beretta Cx4 Storm carbine,[17] a Glock 9mm handgun, and a 14-inch Norinco HP9-1 shotgun. He fired sixty shots, ten of which were fired outside the school. With the exception of five shots from his pistol, including the one to kill himself, all the shots came from the carbine.[18]...

    All of the weapons Gill had in his possession can be legally purchased and owned by a civilian in Canada. As manufactured by Beretta, the Cx4 Storm is a semi-automatic, pistol-calibre centre-fire carbine with a 422mm barrel length. As such, it is categorized as "restricted" in Canada. Any person with a Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL) with restricted-class privileges may purchase this weapon, subject to the approval of the Chief Firearms Officer of the respective province.[19] Kimveer Gill did in fact have a restricted-class PAL and his weapons were registered with the Canadian gun registry. Therefore, he owned the weapons legally under Canadian law[20] though he broke the law by not obtaining an Authorization To Transport (ATT) to bring the firearm to the school and by discharging it outside of an approved range.

    The above should not be possible. What would you suggest as a way to prevent it? Or do you just think it can't be prevented?

    What did he have to do to buy the weapons legally?

    Pondering,

    In a situation like that I don't think there is anything you can do short of banning private ownership of firearms (which doesn't stop them from being brought in illegally) or perhaps catching some kind of red flag mental health issue this guy may have had.

    The man in your example did everything that was legally required to purchase a firearm.  Some of the firearms he used were restricted meaning it was illegal for him to use it anywhere other than an approved shooting range- obviously that didn't stop him.

    What does getting those licences entail? Did he have to take a course? Were there waiting periods? Were the guns he used guns that would be used for hunting?

    What is the age requirement for owning a gun? (If you don't mind answering so many questions, I do appreciate it.)

    Slumberjack

    jjuares wrote:
    I can see that some people really love their guns. But the question you should ask is: Do they love you back?

    How could they?  They're inanimate objects.  Same as with a big kitchen knife, or a chainsaw.  When someone goes on a rampage with a knife, we don't say anything about reducing number of kitchen knives in society.

    Paladin1

    I don't mind at all Pondering.

    In Canada to carry and buy a gun you need to apply for a PAL (Possession and Acusition License). To get that you need to have passed the written and practical tests* for the Canadian Firearms Safety Course (CFSC). [The content of this course is controlled by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Canadian Firearms Program (CFP)].   There is also a POL which is possession only licence so you can own a gun but not buy new ones.

    *There is a caveat that persons 18 years old and older can challange the test without taking the safety course (which is what I did).

    Once you pass the test you apply for the license and the government does a background check including contacting and speaking with ex-common in law partners or ex-spouces.  If you pass everything then you receive a license to own and use a firearm on crown land or shooting ranges. 

    I'm not exactly sure the age requirement for the PAL but I know there is some kind of minors license for non-restricted firearms (no pistols).

     

    In your example he could have used the shotgun (Norinco) for hunting legally but the other two firearms are illegal to hunt with based off of the class of firearms they fall under. The Cx4 carbine rifle and Glock 9mm handgun are only legally allowed to be used on an approved shooting range.  That (shooting range only) rule effects someone like me who chooses to follow the law but it doesn't do anything to prevent school shootings like in your example sadly.

    Pondering

    Hurtin Albertan wrote:
    There are several .50 rifles that are popular for long distance shooting, these probably weigh at least 20 pounds for the rifle and they shoot a really big bullet that is 0.50 inches in diameter, or 12.7mm, the bullet goes about as quickly as most other rifle bullets but because it is so big and heavy, it is going to hit with a lot more energy.  Nobody I have ever heard of uses these for anything other than shooting at targets at gun ranges, although I suppose you could lug one around the countryside and use it on big game animals.

    First, thank-you for answering so many of my questions. As I said to Paladin, I understand if you get tired of it.

    Okay, so from what you and Paladin are saying, these are not the kind of guns that would be used in random school shootings based on expense and reduced portability.

    Hurtin Albertan wrote:
    I would be more than happy to see the warrantless search provisions removed completely from future gun laws, or at worst limited solely to businesses.

    I don't know how that works. In the example provided they did send letters in advance. A scheduled inspection of the firearms and storage area I think is acceptable without a warrant.

    Hurtin Albertan wrote:
    Anyways I'm curious how 9 guns is just fine but 10 guns suddenly opens you up for warrantless searches.  And now that we have gotten rid of the gun registry, how would they ever know when someone goes from 9 guns to 10 or 15 or 20? 

    It's like age of consent laws, you have to pick a age somewhat arbitrarily. Depending on the type of guns I would put the number lower than that.

    Hand guns are stll registered right? Maybe the guns the man had were all handguns.

    I am vaguely remembering that the anti-gun demonstrations after the Dawson shooting were against semi-automatics. Do the same sorts of guns come as non automatic guns?

    Semi-automatic you pull the trigger each time to shoot, so why is it called semi-automatic?

    Were you against the gun registery? If so, on principle, or was it just badly designed?

    Do you think restrictions should be different in urban versus rural areas?

    Are age rules adequate?

    What kind of storage is adequate for guns?

    Should there be a maximum number of guns someone can have?

    Slumberjack

    Hurtin Albertan wrote:
    There are several .50 rifles that are popular for long distance shooting, these probably weigh at least 20 pounds for the rifle and they shoot a really big bullet that is 0.50 inches in diameter, or 12.7mm, the bullet goes about as quickly as most other rifle bullets but because it is so big and heavy, it is going to hit with a lot more energy.

    The Barrett 50 sure hits the shoulder with a lot of energy, no matter how tight you bring it in.  Even the old FNC1 had an cumulative effect on the shoulder after a bunch of rounds.

    cco

    Slumberjack wrote:

    jjuares wrote:
    I can see that some people really love their guns. But the question you should ask is: Do they love you back?

    How could they?  They're inanimate objects.  Same as with a big kitchen knife, or a chainsaw.  When someone goes on a rampage with a knife, we don't say anything about reducing number of kitchen knives in society.

    Well. England does.

    jjuares

    Slumberjack wrote:

    jjuares wrote:
    I can see that some people really love their guns. But the question you should ask is: Do they love you back?

    How could they?  They're inanimate objects.

    Thanks I learned something new today.

    Pondering

    Pondering wrote:

    Hurtin Albertan wrote:
    There are several .50 rifles that are popular for long distance shooting, these probably weigh at least 20 pounds for the rifle and they shoot a really big bullet that is 0.50 inches in diameter, or 12.7mm, the bullet goes about as quickly as most other rifle bullets but because it is so big and heavy, it is going to hit with a lot more energy.  Nobody I have ever heard of uses these for anything other than shooting at targets at gun ranges, although I suppose you could lug one around the countryside and use it on big game animals.

    First, thank-you for answering so many of my questions. As I said to Paladin, I understand if you get tired of it.

    Okay, so from what you and Paladin are saying, these are not the kind of guns that would be used in random school shootings based on expense and reduced portability.

    Hurtin Albertan wrote:
    I would be more than happy to see the warrantless search provisions removed completely from future gun laws, or at worst limited solely to businesses.

    I don't know how that works. In the example provided they did send letters in advance. A scheduled inspection of the firearms and storage area I think is acceptable without a warrant.

    Hurtin Albertan wrote:
    Anyways I'm curious how 9 guns is just fine but 10 guns suddenly opens you up for warrantless searches.  And now that we have gotten rid of the gun registry, how would they ever know when someone goes from 9 guns to 10 or 15 or 20? 

    It's like age of consent laws, you have to pick a age somewhat arbitrarily. Depending on the type of guns I would put the number of guns lower than that.

    Hand guns are stll registered right? Maybe the guns the man had were all handguns.

    I am vaguely remembering that the anti-gun demonstrations after the Dawson shooting were against semi-automatics. Do the same sorts of guns come as non automatic guns?

    Semi-automatic you pull the trigger each time to shoot, so why is it called semi-automatic?

    Were you against the gun registery? If so, on principle, or was it just badly designed?

    Do you think restrictions should be different in urban versus rural areas?

    Are age rules adequate?

    What kind of storage is adequate for guns?

    Should there be a maximum number of guns someone can have?

    Doug Woodard

    Pondering wrote:

    I am vaguely remembering that the anti-gun demonstrations after the Dawson shooting were against semi-automatics. Do the same sorts of guns come as non automatic guns?

    Semi-automatic you pull the trigger each time to shoot, so why is it called semi-automatic?

    Pondering, both automatic and semi-automatic weapons reload using recoil energy or gas pressure.

    Technically, as far as reloading is concerned there is only a trivial difference. From a user rather than public policy standpoint, the reason for choosing semi-auto would be

    1. ammunition consumption of full auto.

    2. lack of accuracy of shots after the first when sing a weapon with powerful recoil; it's hard to hold it on the target.

    For a while, in the 1960s, we used the FN rifle in 7.62 mm NATO (.308 Winchester) with optional full auto fire, but as a shoulder fired weapon it was difficult to fire accurately. The cartridge had almost as much muzzle energy as an American .30-06 or Mauser 7.92mm, and significantly more than the old .303 British. Aside from accuracy, it pounded the user's body. With increased rates of fire, the pummeling became too much. The 7.62 NATO round is still used for its range and power for "heavy" non-shoulder-fired machine guns.

    This is why Kalashnikovs use a 7.62 mm round which is short with relatively low powder capacity, firing a low-velocity bullet, and why high velocity cartridges for modern military rifles capable of full auto fire are mostly 5.56 mm, firing a light bullet. Both are routes to low recoil, low impact on the user's shoulder and potentially high (enough) accuracy.

    From the 1860's until the 1940s, most shoulder-fired repeating military weapons used the the soldier's muscle via a lever, slide or bolt mechanism to reload. Eventually the attraction (and technical possibility) of a machine gun for every soldier overcame the reluctance of armies to introduce a new and weaker, shorter-ranged cartridge.

    Since the reloading mechanism is the same, modifying a semi-auto weapon for full auto is generally fairly easy. If you wanted to make it hard, you would have to design the weapon to make it so. As things stand, manufacturers aren't interested.

    Pages