The Great Gun Control Debate

[Colin Parkinson]

It's not much but a beginning, in fact most of the changes are in line with changes they have made to others Acts, reducing the paperwork, but some more responsibility on owner/operators.

 

[KevinB]

I walked my dog with a pistol today.
I took my mother in law to get her rental car - still with a pistol.

hmm strangely my pistol has not jumped out and attacked anyone today...
In fact I carry all over the US with a pistol and it never has caused my guns to jump out and attack someone.

I feel for you folks up in Canada.

 

[Transporter]

I walked my dog with a pistol today.
I took my mother in law to get her rental car - still with a pistol.

hmm strangely my pistol has not jumped out and attacked anyone today...
In fact I carry all over the US with a pistol and it never has caused my guns to jump out and attack someone.

I feel for you folks up in Canada.

Thanks. I feel for you too.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I walked my dog with a pistol today.
I took my mother in law to get her rental car - still with a pistol.

hmm strangely my pistol has not jumped out and attacked anyone today...
In fact I carry all over the US with a pistol and it never has caused my guns to jump out and attack someone.

I feel for you folks up in Canada.

Just don't attach a stock to that pistol then the pure evil leaks out!

 

[ballz]

Thanks. I feel for you too.

Why's that? Because he has a choice to make that none of us have the freedom to make? If you don't want the burden of carrying around a pistol, you can just not carry it around, no?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Why's that? Because he has a choice to make that none of us have the freedom to make? If you don't want the burden of carrying around a pistol, you can just not carry it around, no?

Calm down. He was being sarcastic. Jeez :

 

[Bass ackwards]

From the article that Hatchet Man posted:

If passed, the act will also do away with possession-only licenses (POL) that currently allow some Canadians to own guns but not acquire new ones. All POLs will become Possession and Acquisition licences, which will be the only type of licence.

I currently hold an RPOL.
I'll be curious to see if I'm going to be forced to jump through all the application hoops or if they'll just issue an RPAL next time around.

 

[ballz]

Calm down. He was being sarcastic. Jeez :

I'm quite calm anic: just had no way in guessing that was sarcasm.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

From the article that Hatchet Man posted:

If passed, the act will also do away with possession-only licenses (POL) that currently allow some Canadians to own guns but not acquire new ones. All POLs will become Possession and Acquisition licences, which will be the only type of licence.

I currently hold an RPOL.
I'll be curious to see if I'm going to be forced to jump through all the application hoops or if they'll just issue an RPAL next time around.

Interesting never knew there was restricted POL's

 

[ballz]

I am wondering if this will put an end to needing a range membership to prove that you are a "target shooter."

If I can bring my rifle to any range that I am about to enter in a competition for, or pay a guest fee instead of a membership, without a specific ATT every time, it seems to muddy up the waters of needing a range membership.

 

[my72jeep]

Interesting never knew there was restricted POL's

Until march 2014 I had a RPOL with 12(6) had a few HG and a AR, never found the time to upgrade till now.

 

[x_para76]

I walked my dog with a pistol today.
I took my mother in law to get her rental car - still with a pistol.

hmm strangely my pistol has not jumped out and attacked anyone today...
In fact I carry all over the US with a pistol and it never has caused my guns to jump out and attack someone.

I feel for you folks up in Canada.

I personally find it sad that you need to walk around armed to make you feel safe.

We all like the idea of being able to carry firearms because most of us on here feel that we are competent when it comes to handling them. The problem is IMO is that the average person isn't competent and there is no safety course that teaches people to shoot under stress. So if John Q. Public is allowed to walk around with a semi automatic pistol and decides to use it to stop a violent crime does that mean if they shoot and wound/kill a bystander in the process they will be protected under the Good Samaritan act?

IMO it sounds like a good idea in theory but when put into practice there are a lot more moving parts when it comes to the practical application.

 

[RedcapCrusader]

I personally find it sad that you need to walk around armed to make you feel safe.

We all like the idea of being able to carry firearms because most of us on here feel that we are competent when it comes to handling them. The problem is IMO is that the average person isn't competent and there is no safety course that teaches people to shoot under stress. So if John Q. Public is allowed to walk around with a semi automatic pistol and decides to use it to stop a violent crime does that mean if they shoot and wound/kill a bystander in the process they will be protected under the Good Samaritan act?

IMO it sounds like a good idea in theory but when put into practice there are a lot more moving parts when it comes to the practical application.

I don't need to carry a firearm around when I work to feel safe. It's not me that needs to feel safe. It is a tool for the administration and maintenance of the public peace. Why should I be limited as soon as my uniform comes off?

I have been witness to far too many random violent crimes both on-duty and off-duty that denying a citizen's right to apply for and receive a carry permit is negligent on part of the crown.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I personally find it sad that you need to walk around armed to make you feel safe.

We all like the idea of being able to carry firearms because most of us on here feel that we are competent when it comes to handling them. The problem is IMO is that the average person isn't competent and there is no safety course that teaches people to shoot under stress. So if John Q. Public is allowed to walk around with a semi automatic pistol and decides to use it to stop a violent crime does that mean if they shoot and wound/kill a bystander in the process they will be protected under the Good Samaritan act?

IMO it sounds like a good idea in theory but when put into practice there are a lot more moving parts when it comes to the practical application.

I'm not sure you know who you're responding to.

op:

 

[Zoomie]

I'm not sure you know who you're responding to.

How is that relevant?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

How is that relevant?

Because I don't believe anyone has to be, condescendingly, sad for Kev. Given what duties he carried out overseas sometimes under high stress, who he now works for and his high proficiency on a number of platforms, I doubt he's carrying to "feel safe."

He sells weapons, what salesman doesn't carry samples?

 

[Furniture]

Because I don't believe anyone has to be, condescendingly, sad for Kev. Given what duties he carried out overseas sometimes under high stress, who he now works for and his high proficiency on a number of platforms, I doubt he's carrying to "feel safe."

He sells weapons, what salesman doesn't carry samples?

Further to that;

What professional stops being who and what they are when they are "off the clock" so to speak?

 

[x_para76]

Because I don't believe anyone has to be, condescendingly, sad for Kev. Given what duties he carried out overseas sometimes under high stress, who he now works for and his high proficiency on a number of platforms, I doubt he's carrying to "feel safe."

He sells weapons, what salesman doesn't carry samples?

No intention on my part to be condescending I was just suggesting that I find it sad the U.S has deteriorated to the point that people would feel the need to be armed to carry out everyday life.

I must concede the point regarding samples. I sell booze for a living now and rarely find myself without a sample or two to hand out.

I don't need to carry a firearm around when I work to feel safe. It's not me that needs to feel safe. It is a tool for the administration and maintenance of the public peace. Why should I be limited as soon as my uniform comes off?

I have been witness to far too many random violent crimes both on-duty and off-duty that denying a citizen's right to apply for and receive a carry permit is negligent on part of the crown.

It has already been stated earlier in this thread that the mandatory safety course doesn't prove any true level of competence and is just more red tape than anything else. My question is if we're gonna allow the public to legally carry firearms should there be a greater level of training required that would allow them to do so?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It has already been stated earlier in this thread that the mandatory safety course doesn't prove any true level of competence and is just more red tape than anything else. My question is if we're gonna allow the public to legally carry firearms should there be a greater level of training required that would allow them to do so?

Already in place.

IF you are, currently, able to secure that elusive carry permit that is allowed to Canadians, one of the conditions is that you will, likely, have to  annually\ bi-annually show proficiency with said weapon.

It will be to the satisfaction of the CFO and it will NOT BE hit that fig.11 at ten feet ten times, but more likely the same course of fire and standards that the police are held to.

 

[jpjohnsn]

He sells weapons, what salesman doesn't carry samples?

How about realtors and forklift salesman?