• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,688
Points
1,140
Start with a air pistol and go from there, air guns not being banned.
Have ranges rent out guns likes skis, with long term leases for higher end competitors that don't want to share. It's already illegal to shoot outside of licensed ranges.
The spectrum has to change =/= the spectrum can't exist.
Do you shoot competitively? I do.

One of the ways by which I learned to compete was by attending matches across the province/country, picking up tips and tricks by watching others run the courses of fire.

Under your construct, if I compete at another club with a short term rental gun I've never trained with (even if the same make and model as my "home club" gun) I'd be at a significant disadvantage while competing against a shooter from the host club using a long term rental gun s/he trains on constantly. That shooter progresses faster than I do. Not all clubs have the all-volunteer staff or facilities to host the same number of matches per season. Some have indoor and outdoor ranges, some only outdoor or indoor. This allows some shooters to train year round, while others cannot. Many who cannot shoot live during the winter months will substitute live fire with dry firing at home, something your rental construct would disallow. This would be another barrier to participation. Yes, there are technological workarounds but they are expensive, another barrier to participation.

The logistics of all clubs managing their short and long term rental inventory, ensuring they have sufficient of each classification for upcoming matches while maintaining their inventory in serviceable condition would be enormous and another barrier to the success of the sport.
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,676
Points
1,090
A-not the same scope of involvement
Why?
B-hygiene
Really? Easily dealt with.
C- you are legally allowed to use hockey equipment away from said facility
Again. I said Imagine. Now imagine the impact on how player can improve. And if he had to draw equipment from different facilities. That’s the impact on sports shooters.
D- regular use at different facilities in short timespans (next day if not same day) normal.
Not if trying to master one particular thing.
As long as ranges are allowed and willing to keep, maintain, and provide equipment on site, the ability to take the equipment from the only space youre allowed to use it to store it at home is not necessary for the viability of the sport.
Again, discouraging people reduces competition and improvement. Lessening the viability of the sport.
No no and no. Hence fudd.

I also dont own skis, am not and have not ever been a member of a ski club, and yet I can handle pretty much any black diamond in Ontario(not that that says much)
But you aren’t competing or intend to compete at higher levels. Competitive skiers don’t rent their equipment.
 

IKnowNothing

Member
Reaction score
154
Points
530
Do you shoot competitively? I do.

One of the ways by which I learned to compete was by attending matches across the province/country, picking up tips and tricks by watching others run the courses of fire.

Under your construct, if I compete at another club with a short term rental gun I've never trained with (even if the same make and model as my "home club" gun) I'd be at a significant disadvantage while competing against a shooter from the host club using a long term rental gun s/he trains on constantly. That shooter progresses faster than I do. Not all clubs have the all-volunteer staff or facilities to host the same number of matches per season. Some have indoor and outdoor ranges, some only outdoor or indoor. This allows some shooters to train year round, while others cannot. Many who cannot shoot live during the winter months will substitute live fire with dry firing at home, something your rental construct would disallow. This would be another barrier to participation. Yes, there are technological workarounds but they are expensive, another barrier to participation.

The logistics of all clubs managing their short and long term rental inventory, ensuring they have sufficient of each classification for upcoming matches while maintaining their inventory in serviceable condition would be enormous and another barrier to the success of the sport.
Thank you for this. I appreciate you taking the time to make an informative argument, rather than specious comparisons.

Firstly, and somewhat callously, all sports have the advantaged and disadvantaged. It sucks but its reality.

Secondly, are there not fairly straight forward logistical and regulatory work arounds to those barriers? Licenced members being able to sign out range weapons for travel to another range, ranges organizing transport by "coach" for the unlicensed, etc? The pure rental aspect was the entry level retort to the claim that it would be impossible to enter and practice the sport. Any actual solution would be far more involved.

Thirdly- if such a system and its infrastructure were inplace, couldnt I make the argument that overall barrier to the sport (on an individual level) would be greatly reduced by normalizing non restricted pal, non owner members?
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,676
Points
1,090
Thank you for this. I appreciate you taking the time to make an informative argument, rather than specious comparisons.

Firstly, and somewhat callously, all sports have the advantaged and disadvantaged. It sucks but its reality.

Secondly, are there not fairly straight forward logistical and regulatory work arounds to those barriers? Licenced members being able to sign out range weapons for travel to another range, ranges organizing transport by "coach" for the unlicensed, etc? The pure rental aspect was the entry level retort to the claim that it would be impossible to enter and practice the sport. Any actual solution would be far more involved.

Thirdly- if such a system and its infrastructure were inplace, couldnt I make the argument that overall barrier to the sport (on an individual level) would be greatly reduced by normalizing non restricted pal, non owner members?
You went and made plenty of specious comparisons (skiing for one).

Legal gun owners being lumped in a law meant to deter criminals is a specious comparison no?

It’s not about the impossibility of entering the sport. But it’s the barriers that discourage and make it improbable. And the vague answers given by the government trying to reassure an already suspicious group in the face of bad legislation to begin with.
 

IKnowNothing

Member
Reaction score
154
Points
530
You went and made plenty of specious comparisons (skiing for one).

Legal gun owners being lumped in a law meant to deter criminals is a specious comparison no?

It’s not about the impossibility of entering the sport.
The post I initially replied to was literally about buying being the first step and not being able to buy completely blocking grssroots entry.

Skiing is a perfect comparison for grassroots entry, familiarization, and skill development. Requires access to 3rd party facilities and specialized equipment. Plenty of people make do without owning. Though as Haggis pointed out, definite logistical hurdles for travel competition
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,676
Points
1,090
The post I initially replied to was literally about buying being the first step and not being able to buy completely blocking grssroots entry.

Skiing is a perfect comparison for grassroots entry, familiarization, and skill development. Requires access to 3rd party facilities and specialized equipment. Plenty of people make do without owning. Though as Haggis pointed out, definite logistical hurdles for travel competition
But are allowed to still own. The option is there. I am all for loaners and rentals and borrowing, I am against restriction based on unfounded reasons. Restrictions that reduce participation in a legal activity.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,688
Points
1,140
Thank you for this. I appreciate you taking the time to make an informative argument, rather than specious comparisons.

Firstly, and somewhat callously, all sports have the advantaged and disadvantaged. It sucks but its reality.
Your construct infers a government imposed disadvantage by design as a disincentive to participation.
Secondly, are there not fairly straight forward logistical and regulatory work arounds to those barriers? Licenced members being able to sign out range weapons for travel to another range, ranges organizing transport by "coach" for the unlicensed, etc?
Currently, no and unlikely in the future. This would require a significant re-write of the Firearms Act and Shooting Club/Shooting Range Regulations. History has shown that this government is not at all interested in doing anything permissive in these statutes.
The pure rental aspect was the entry level retort to the claim that it would be impossible to enter and practice the sport. Any actual solution would be far more involved.
Indeed it would. At present, an unlicensed person cannot possess (in any way) or use a firearm unless under the direct and constant supervision of a person who holds the proper class of license.

Unless you're a criminal.
Thirdly- if such a system and its infrastructure were in place, couldn't I make the argument that overall barrier to the sport (on an individual level) would be greatly reduced by normalizing non restricted pal, non owner members?
No, for two reasons.

First, the cost of setting up that Infrastructure (secure and monitored centralized storage and acquiring the inventory) would be prohibitive to the vast majority of clubs in Canada, which are generally located in rural or remote areas due to the NIMBY mindset of urban Canadians. Again, another barrier to participation to all but the wealthy (elite?).

Also, as past robberies of gun stores, police and military facilities around the world have shown centralized storage is a magnet for criminal activity.

Second, and I refer back to my above point, this government is not at all interested in doing anything that would encourage the growth or survival of shooting sports or lawful gun ownership.
 

IKnowNothing

Member
Reaction score
154
Points
530
Your construct infers a government imposed disadvantage by design as a disincentive to participation.

Currently, no and unlikely in the future. This would require a significant re-write of the Firearms Act and Shooting Club/Shooting Range Regulations. History has shown that this government is not at all interested in doing anything permissive in these statutes.

Indeed it would. At present, an unlicensed person cannot possess (in any way) or use a firearm unless under the direct and constant supervision of a person who holds the proper class of license.

Unless you're a criminal.

No, for two reasons.

First, the cost of setting up that Infrastructure (secure and monitored centralized storage and acquiring the inventory) would be prohibitive to the vast majority of clubs in Canada, which are generally located in rural or remote areas due to the NIMBY mindset of urban Canadians. Again, another barrier to participation to all but the wealthy (elite?).

Also, as past robberies of gun stores, police and military facilities around the world have shown centralized storage is a magnet for criminal activity.

Second, and I refer back to my above point, this government is not at all interested in doing anything that would encourage the growth or survival of shooting sports or lawful gun ownership.
Both those points are barriers to providing the infrastructure, not a rebuttal that providing the infrastructure would reduce barrier to individual entry.

Hockey was brought up. I brought up skiing. Definitely elitist and dwindling sports, with the biggest downfall being cost, a large part of that cost being required personal ownership of equipment (all levels hockey, competitive skiiing. Sports that are thriving? Show up and "play". Food for thought.

I was wrong about how easy it would be to work around, and the day 1 impact to the sport the way things are.But one (imposed) change to the status quo should lead to empassioned discussion of whether the entire status quo can be improved.

Again thank-you for the thoughtful responses.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
4,628
Points
1,010
Your construct infers a government imposed disadvantage by design as a disincentive to participation.

Currently, no and unlikely in the future. This would require a significant re-write of the Firearms Act and Shooting Club/Shooting Range Regulations. History has shown that this government is not at all interested in doing anything permissive in these statutes.

Indeed it would. At present, an unlicensed person cannot possess (in any way) or use a firearm unless under the direct and constant supervision of a person who holds the proper class of license.

Unless you're a criminal.

No, for two reasons.

First, the cost of setting up that Infrastructure (secure and monitored centralized storage and acquiring the inventory) would be prohibitive to the vast majority of clubs in Canada, which are generally located in rural or remote areas due to the NIMBY mindset of urban Canadians. Again, another barrier to participation to all but the wealthy (elite?).

Also, as past robberies of gun stores, police and military facilities around the world have shown centralized storage is a magnet for criminal activity.

Second, and I refer back to my above point, this government is not at all interested in doing anything that would encourage the growth or survival of shooting sports or lawful gun ownership.
Basically, nothing this government does concerning firearms is in good faith to firearms owners.
 

Eaglelord17

Sr. Member
Reaction score
433
Points
810
People currently enjoying the sport without access to a licensed facility arent law abiding gun owners
You can have a range on your own property if it is approved. You can also shoot antique handguns anywhere you can shoot a non-restricted, thereby not requiring a licensed range to practice (or even a firearms license).
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
3,694
Points
1,060
Arguing you can keep competitive sport shooting alive, or any kind of shooting alive, by a rental system is ridiculous.

The government continues to attack lawful gun owners because:
1. it's easier
2. it still get votes
3. Canadians are too selfish and short-sighted to care unless they're directly impacted in the moment.


Nova Scotia votes Liberal. Maybe they'll luck in and Lucki will retire from the RCMP an run for a nice Liberal MP spot out that way.
 
Last edited:

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
3,694
Points
1,060

Justice Canada mum as N.S. shooting inquiry seeks 'explanation' for withheld pages​


A first cache of pages received in February did not contain Supt. Campbell’s description of the RCMP Commissioner’s attempts to publicly disclose the type of firearms used
OTTAWA — Justice Canada is refusing to say why it withheld critical information from the inquiry looking into Canada’s worst mass shooting in history for nearly four months.

The Mass Casualty Commission confirmed on Friday that it did not receive both versions of RCMP Supt. Darren Campbell’s handwritten notes made in the days following the shooting at the same time and has asked the federal Department of Justice why that was the case.

A first cache of 132 pages was received on Feb. 14, 2022 but did not contain Campbell’s written description of RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki’s attempts to publicly disclose the type of firearms used in the shooting, at the federal government’s request, during a “tense” meeting with Nova Scotia RCMP officials that took place on April 28, 2020, nine days after the mass shooting in Nova Scotia.

The commission said it received another version of the notes on May 31, 2022 in which those four pages of handwritten notes were added.

Nothing suspicious about leaving out 4 pages of hand-written notes that question the integrity of the RCMP's top cop, right?
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,688
Points
1,140
Both those points are barriers to providing the infrastructure, not a rebuttal that providing the infrastructure would reduce barrier to individual entry.
The idea of centralized storage for handguns has been floated before. Ideas such as having local firearms businesses offer it as a pay-per-use service to having local law enforcement provide storage and even, in Ontario, having all handguns centrally stored at CFB Borden and accessible by appointment only.

You realize, of course, that shooting clubs are, by law, not-for-profit entities, right? They don't carry scads of cash in their bank accounts to build secure storage facilities requiring alarms, security lighting and high tech access control systems in the middle of nowhere. This is the level of security that the government will insist upon under it's upcoming strengthened storage regime.

As an aside, shooting clubs and shooting ranges are not the same things. A shooting club is an organization, while a shooting range is a facility. A shooting range could, in theory, host several shooting clubs.
I was wrong about how easy it would be to work around, and the day 1 impact to the sport the way things are.
Those barriers are actually quite significant. The current government would not allow public funds to be spent to secure private firearms except as confiscated property. The pushback they are receiving about the government funded deactivation plan is substantial. Some gun control advocates still believe straight up confiscation is proper. Remember, too, that there is no mention of compensation for any currently or future banned firearms in Bill C-21. Not a single nickel.
But one (imposed) change to the status quo should lead to empassioned discbaussion of whether the entire status quo can be improved.
The status quo is just fine. Magazine capacity limits exist already. "Red" and "yellow" flag laws exist already. Safe storage laws exist already. The police, CBSA and the courts just have to enforce them diligently on those who cause the largest burden - criminals.
Again thank-you for the thoughtful responses.
Not a problem. This is an issue that shows me just how little our government really cares about it's citizens and their rights and privileges. They are willing to demonize and eventually criminalize the most heavily vetted segment of Canadian society for votes.
 
Last edited:

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
964
Points
1,060
No no and no. Hence fudd.

I also dont own skis, am not and have not ever been a member of a ski club, and yet I can handle pretty much any black diamond in Ontario(not that that says much)
How well you can ski is of absolutely zero interest to me. It is not in the same category. I don't even know what a black diamond is, unless you're speaking of cheese.

Thanks for being candid though. I just wanted to see how much skin you actually have in the game.

Cheers
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
964
Points
1,060
Sorry, forgot to ask.

Who is going to pay for all these hardened storage areas, ongoing maintenance and staffing? Am I going to be required to centrally store my hunting and recreational long guns? Is whoever guards them going to be armed? What ROE's do you suggest they have? How and when will I be allowed to access my firearms? Who will be liable if there is a break in and things are gone? How many more laws is this initiative going to create? Whoever works there will be required to hold a PAL, with every classification available, in order to access and touch those guns, including
  • s.12(2): full automatics
  • s.12(3): converted automatics
  • s.12(4): firearms prohibited by former prohibition order No. 12
  • s.12(5): firearms prohibited by former prohibition order No. 13
  • s.12(6.1): handguns with a barrel length of 105 mm or less or that discharge .25 or .32 calibre ammunition.
  • s.12(7): inherited handguns made prior to 1946 that fall under the s. 12(6.1) category
Calling for central storage may be honourable, but unless we discuss all the repercussions, pitfalls and plans involved in that exercise, as a discussion points central storage is moot.

In completely, unrelated news:

There are people out there that have taken down military and police armouries and made off with the guns.

The police and the military are large contributors of illegal guns on the street. Who will watch the state?

RCMP: 813 GUNS LOST BY AND STOLEN FROM POLICE AND PUBLIC AGENCIES, 2005-2019

 

Attachments

  • 813-Guns-Lost-and-Stolen-from-Police-and-Public-Agencies-July-3-2019 (1).pdf
    1.5 MB · Views: 2

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,291
Points
1,140
ABC - always be carrying;) D44BAA9D-6A5B-4CE8-8AA7-F9CFCFBD255B.jpeg
I left Canada in 2005. So I’ve had several years now of freedoms down here, that make me absolutely incredulous about the stupidity of Canada gun laws.

The AR was restricted by name in 1994, how many crimes have been committed by AR’s and other restricted/prohibited rifles that where lawfully owned since they point in time?

I’ll wait…


Lawful firearm owners are not the problem
— but it’s simply a population control method, with the idea of creating a cultural genocide of the Canadian Gun Culture.
 
Top