Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
Would it make sense for them to just have some limited number of guns you can use? Like, here's a couple shotguns that qualify, a few rifles etc. That's it. You can swap your non-compliant one for a compliant one.
How many different gun types do we need to have legal in this country, anyway? Sure, choice decreases, whatever. This way there are no gray areas, no slight modifications to keep track of. Just a short list of guns you can legally own that are capable of hunting, or sport shooting or whatever, but have the limitations we desire like rate of fire, magazine size etc.
Note that I know nothing about guns, so maybe this is a dumb idea but it seems like it would simplify the argument a lot.
|
This is essentially what we already have in place, we in Canada had three tiers of firearms.Non Restricted firearms (long guns and shot guns) , Restricted Firearms ( Pistols , Hand guns, Certain semi automatic rifles ) , Prohibited - Full Automatic weapons. We have restrictions of use within the first 2 categories as is IE you can only use a handgun in a certified range and it must be only transported from safe storage to the range direct A to B.
Bill C-21 removes restricted firearms to prohibited and now with the new ammedments is moving firearms from non restricted to prohibited as well. To add to this is the very lose language of the amendment that can be used to cover many more hunting rifles.