• 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

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,405
Points
1,060
We just had a shooting on a reserve here in North Van, I will bet money neither the victims or the shooters had PAL's or could get one.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,044
Points
1,260
Brad is right.

You are the one conflating marksmanship and skill with firearms with firearms safety. Hitting a target should not be a governmental concern. A Government’s only concern should be that the right firearms are in the right people’s hands and that they are stored safely when not in use. Anything beyond that is over reach.

Sure, if that's how you see it.

A course in the safe use of a firearm should include safe operation and competence as well.

There is legal rights and there is natural rights. Just because it isn’t a legal right doesn’t mean someone else doesn’t consider it their natural one. According to our laws property ownership isn’t a enshrined right either though if the government was to just declare it was going to seize everything you possess people would likely rebel.

You aren’t going to lose any firearms because people are emotional about them, you are going to lose them because we have governments which wish to have them banned for no valid reason other than politics.

If that the tac you want to take go for it.

We are our own worst enemies. A simple pass of over anything up for discussion on gun forums or social media and you will see it's ugly and doesn't give us a good look.

A big part of this is a battle for perception.
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,865
Points
1,110
We just had a shooting on a reserve here in North Van, I will bet money neither the victims or the shooters had PAL's or could get one.
On the reservations here they stab. Black handle kitchen knife is the weapon of choice.

Indigenous people here in the north need guns to hunt - a traditional way of life - and to protect themselves from wildlife like bears.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,656
Points
1,140
Indigenous people here in the north need guns to hunt - a traditional way of life - and to protect themselves from wildlife like bears.
The fact the Europeans brought guns to North America seems to be overlooked. Firearm hunting in the Americas was pioneered by Europeans— not indigenous.

Also PET was the weasel who removed the firearms rights provisions of the BNA with his ‘charter of rights and freedoms’ no shock the rotten apple didn’t fall far.
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
607
Points
1,260
Toronto also has had issues since they stopped carding people.

For readers perhaps - or perhaps not - unfamiliar with "carding" in the city.

"Carding" in Toronto dates back to 1957, when the Metro force was created.
Back then, they were given actual "Suspect Cards", to document and forward information about persons of interest to detectives.
Over the years they were called "forms", "reports", "street checks", "Community Engagements".
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
3,907
Points
1,010
Sure, if that's how you see it.

A course in the safe use of a firearm should include safe operation and competence as well.



If that the tac you want to take go for it.

We are our own worst enemies. A simple pass of over anything up for discussion on gun forums or social media and you will see it's ugly and doesn't give us a good look.

A big part of this is a battle for perception.
But safe handling was not you proposed. You proposed a marksmanship test. What obtaining a certain grouping has to do with safe handling (especially for someone new getting into the sport who may have never owned or used a firearm previously is beyond me.

People here are being polite to you. It is my perception that you are the one being rude and making things personal when nobody agrees with your point of view.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,611
Points
1,140
A course in the safe use of a firearm should include safe operation and competence as well.
Agreed, as long as the standards are attainable and reasonable for the neophyte practitioner.
We are our own worst enemies. A simple pass of over anything up for discussion on gun forums or social media and you will see it's ugly and doesn't give us a good look.
The same can be said for forums on any contentious or unpopular issue. The difference is that in most other forums about lawful activities, the government isn't overtly trying to kill the activity or portray it as a massive public safety issue.
A big part of this is a battle for perception.
We only control one side of the narrative. Yes, the "mah guns!" and "cold, dead hands" elements don't do us any favours, but when the government paints me and my gun club with the same brush as the Five Point Generalz, we have already lost.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,044
Points
1,260
But safe handling was not you proposed. You proposed a marksmanship test. What obtaining a certain grouping has to do with safe handling (especially for someone new getting into the sport who may have never owned or used a firearm previously is beyond me.

People here are being polite to you. It is my perception that you are the one being rude and making things personal when nobody agrees with your point of view.

Can you give me examples of being rude or personal ? All I have every done is recognized the opposite position and simply expressed mine.

Back to the topic at hand, the difference is one of perception. I see that safe handling should include some expression of competency of use. We can debate the actual details of the exam, I just through out some numbers.

We do the same thing to driving, for example. If you want to be a fully accredited driver you have to pass the practical driving exam.
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,044
Points
1,260
Agreed, as long as the standards are attainable and reasonable for the neophyte practitioner.

The same can be said for forums on any contentious or unpopular issue. The difference is that in most other forums about lawful activities, the government isn't overtly trying to kill the activity or portray it as a massive public safety issue.

We only control one side of the narrative. Yes, the "mah guns!" and "cold, dead hands" elements don't do us any favours, but when the government paints me and my gun club with the same brush as the Five Point Generalz, we have already lost.

Ya I mean if a practical exam was implemented, which I doubt would happen, I'm sure it wouldn't use the numbers I said earlier.

The issue to me is those "mah guns" and "cold dead hands" folks provide the a subsequent means for politicians to attack us and paint us. I feel if we could fix that segment and simply point to the real criminals as the problem we might sway more folks.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
2,819
Points
1,010
Firearms are used mostly in private areas (ranges) or well away from highly populated areas (hunting), not on roads in the middle of cities. Apples/oranges comparisons don't make much sense.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
837
Points
1,060
This subject has Psaki'd Back around three times, in as many pages.
One for, everyone else against.
I wonder if it's time to move on.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,405
Points
1,060
The fact the Europeans brought guns to North America seems to be overlooked. Firearm hunting in the Americas was pioneered by Europeans— not indigenous.
Samuel de Champlain decided to side with one tribe and demonstrate the effectiveness of firearms on their enemies, that was the first demonstration in what became Canada.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,611
Points
1,140
Ya I mean if a practical exam was implemented, which I doubt would happen, I'm sure it wouldn't use the numbers I said earlier.
My club requires new members - who have already completed the CRFSC - to attend a one-day classroom safety course based on the CSSA curriculum. This is followed by up to six live fire sessions supervised by a CSSA certified instructor, most of whom are veterans, active LEOs or competitive shooters. During these sessions you are assessed on safe handling, and familiarization with the manual of arms for your firearm. Marksmanship is a secondary concern, but we will provide coaching as long as you are safely handling your firearm. If by visit 6, you are not deemed safe and competent, you are refunded. Is that good enough in your eyes?
The issue to me is those "mah guns" and "cold dead hands" folks provide the a subsequent means for politicians to attack us and paint us. I feel if we could fix that segment and simply point to the real criminals as the problem we might sway more folks.
Substitute "mah guns" for "mah rights" on any topic and you have the same problem. Those communities can't silence their fringe element any better than the gun community can. The MSM will always be drawn to those people because they make good sound bites and quotes. But they shy away from Wendy Cukier when she spouts her sensationalistic vitriol.

If you have any solutions, please speak up!
 
Last edited:

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,044
Points
1,260
My club requires new members - who have already completed the CRFSC - to attend a one-day classroom safety course based on the CSSA curriculum. This is followed by up to six live fire sessions supervised by a CSSA certified instructor, most of whom are veterans, active LEOs or competitive shooters. During these sessions you are assessed on safe handling, and familiarization with the manual of arms for your firearm. Marksmanship is a secondary concern, but we will provide coaching as long as you are safely handling your firearm. If by visit 6, you are not deemed safe and competent, you are refunded. Is that good enough in your eyes?

Substitute "mah guns" for "mah rights" on any topic and you have the same problem. This communities can't silence their fringe element any better than the gun community can. The MSM will always be drawn to those people because they make good sound bites and quotes. But they shy away from Wendy Cukier when she spouts her sensationalistic vitriol.

Look this isn't up too me. I have less than zero say on our federal firearms liscencing system. I'm just of the opinion that our liscencing and requirements should be tougher and too a higher standard.

As for you club, it sounds like a professional well run club. As for if it's good enough in my eyes well I'm also not a member of your shooting club. So you tell me is it good enough for you ? I assume it is or you wouldn't be there.

Pointing in the other direction when our own faults are pointed out isn't part of the solution. Wendy Cukier is free to say what she wants and I don't pay her much attention. Personally I think her antics have hurt her cause. What I do care about is how we are portrayed and how we conduct ourselves.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,611
Points
1,140
Wendy Cukier is free to say what she wants and I don't pay her much attention. Personally I think her antics have hurt her cause.
The jointly GoC/NS funded Mass Casualty Commission (MCC) paid Wendy's organization $210,866.00 to continue their assault on lawful gun ownership using the MCC as the vehicle. The CCFR, NFA, CSSA, SFC etc. didn't get a nickel from the MCC to counter her. I think her "cause" is doing just fine.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,269
Points
1,060
What ever happened to that bullying probe where she was accused of fostering a toxic work environment with some employees feeling demeaned, overworked and disrespected (a real Julie Payette).

The one where she was supposed to take over as the first female president of Brock University but "mutually agreed to leave 3 days before" it happened.
 
Top