She bought a semi-auto rifle, not an assault rifle. And you can buy the same thing in Canada in the same time frame.
Is this purposefully obtuse?
To buy an AR-15 in Canada, you need a 2-day course, a Restricted PAL (which IIRC is a 60-90 day wait), and authorization to transport. Sounds like more than a 7 minute process. Florida requires no licensing.
Also throw in the fact that semi-autos in Canada cannot be sold or legally owned with more than a 5-round magazine, and would need to be illegally modified (again, more than 7 minutes). Also not the case in Florida.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DownhillGoat For This Useful Post:
Is this purposefully obtuse?
To buy an AR-15 in Canada, you need a 2-day course, a Restricted PAL (which IIRC is a 60-90 day wait), and authorization to transport. Sounds like more than a 7 minute process. Florida requires no licensing.
Also throw in the fact that semi-autos in Canada cannot be sold or legally owned with more than a 5-round magazine, and would need to be illegally modified (again, more than 7 minutes). Also not the case in Florida.
Since he didn't use an AR-15, the comparison should be made using an AR type firearm, of which there are models in Canada that are non-restricted. Even then, the AR is only restricted in Canada because of name and looks, not function.
To own a non-restricted AR type firearm in Canada, you need a PAL, no ATT, can use magazines with more than 5 rounds and can walk out of the store with it after paying. No information is required to be recorded at time of sale.
The only difference is the requirement for a PAL versus a NICS check.
If you want a restricted, there is a slight wait time before you can take it home (can get it done in an hour or so), the ATT is now automatically issued as part of a license and the same magazine rules apply.
Last edited by llwhiteoutll; 06-16-2016 at 11:05 AM.
Since he didn't use an AR-15, the comparison should be made using an AR type firearm, of which there are models in Canada that are non-restricted. Even then, the AR is only restricted in Canada because of name and looks, not function.
To own a non-restricted AR type firearm in Canada, you need a PAL, no ATT, can use magazines with more than 5 rounds and can walk out of the store with it after paying. No information is required to be recorded at time of sale.
The only difference is the requirement for a PAL versus a NICS check.
If you want a restricted, there is a slight wait time before you can take it home (can get it done in an hour or so), the ATT is now automatically issued as part of a license and the same magazine rules apply.
An hour? I'd definitely be flaccid by the time I left the store.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
Settle down there, Temple Grandin.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to PsYcNeT For This Useful Post:
Since he didn't use an AR-15, the comparison should be made using an AR type firearm, of which there are models in Canada that are non-restricted. Even then, the AR is only restricted in Canada because of name and looks, not function.
To own a non-restricted AR type firearm in Canada, you need a PAL, no ATT, can use magazines with more than 5 rounds and can walk out of the store with it after paying. No information is required to be recorded at time of sale.
The only difference is the requirement for a PAL versus a NICS check.
If you want a restricted, there is a slight wait time before you can take it home (can get it done in an hour or so), the ATT is now automatically issued as part of a license and the same magazine rules apply.
Umm, Non-restricted Semi auto still has a 5 round limit. As long as you're not using the loophole like beowulfe mags. More than 5 round mag is 4 years.
The Following User Says Thank You to CrunchBite For This Useful Post:
Ugh. Why do these conversations always come down to weapon types.
You don't need anything more than a single shot rifle/shotgun to hunt. Anything other than that is built to kill things (people) at an excessive rate, with an excessive amount of bullets, with very minimal effort. Who cares what f***ing model it is?
"Oh but this one can only kill 20 people per minute, while that other one can kill 100 people per minute. They're completely diffferent!"
__________________
The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to Coach For This Useful Post:
You're limited to 5 rounds if you use a magazine that was designed for a semi-auto rifle. If you use a magazine not designed for a semi-auto rifle, you're limited to that magazine's legal limit
Thank you for bringing your knowledge to the table whiteout, I will admit you've changed my opinion on the subject. I now realize our gun control laws while more restrictive then the states, are no where near restrictive enough.
I'm with MattyC, all auto and semi automatic guns should be banned outright(except for police/military use), if you want to shoot something so bad you can load each round manually.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Dan02 For This Useful Post:
I still think that all civilian weapons should be ball and powder based. Its hard to do a drive by if you need to rip the powder bag, pour it in, drop the ball. Pull out your tamping rod and give it a couple of hard tampings then replace the flint stricker on the trigger.
Then watch the ball bounce off of a guys leather jacket.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
So those restrictions would certainly curtail legal use by those who follow the law. License holders are certainly dangerous to society.
Now what kind of law would you impose on criminals with no regard for laws, using guns obttained through crime and smuggling? Maybe the police could ask them nicely to turn them in during an amnesty?
So those restrictions would certainly curtail legal use by those who follow the law. License holders are certainly dangerous to society.
Now what kind of law would you impose on criminals with no regard for laws, using guns obttained through crime and smuggling? Maybe the police could ask them nicely to turn them in during an amnesty?
You have very little to fear from criminals that obtain guns through crime and smuggling, although I'd also point out that getting a gun through either crime or smuggling still requires somewhere to have stupid gun laws that mean idiots have guns lying around, if the U.S. tightened up its gun laws we would have way less criminals with guns in Canada, that said the reality is criminals shoot other criminals almost exclusively.
If you are going to die in a shooting it will almost always be your drunken just laid off family member or colleague
So those restrictions would certainly curtail legal use by those who follow the law. License holders are certainly dangerous to society.
Now what kind of law would you impose on criminals with no regard for laws, using guns obttained through crime and smuggling? Maybe the police could ask them nicely to turn them in during an amnesty?
Maybe not allowing the weapons to be manufactured within your borders or shipped to your country? At the very least it would limit the amount of guns and price them out of the hands of most low-level criminals.
And then more vigilance on arms trafficking.
"But drugs!"
It's harder to hide rifles than it is to hide drugs.
Is the fact that some criminals will still be able to obtain firearms illegally a reason to arm your entire populace?
So those restrictions would certainly curtail legal use by those who follow the law. License holders are certainly dangerous to society.
This guy was a law abiding, legal gun owner too, until then suddenly he wasn't.
Quote:
Now what kind of law would you impose on criminals with no regard for laws, using guns obttained through crime and smuggling? Maybe the police could ask them nicely to turn them in during an amnesty?
There would be no more of these guns to obtain through crime. But you're right I can't solve smuggling or the availability of guns in the US, but because the US has a problem with guns we shouldn't do anything either, amirite?
I still think that all civilian weapons should be ball and powder based. Its hard to do a drive by if you need to rip the powder bag, pour it in, drop the ball. Pull out your tamping rod and give it a couple of hard tampings then replace the flint stricker on the trigger.
Then watch the ball bounce off of a guys leather jacket.
An incomplete list of responses to pro-gun arguments...
“You can’t change the constitution.”
- Yes you can. It’s called a ####ing amendment.
“But it’s in the bill of rights.”
- Good news: we don’t have to change a thing! 2nd amendment here: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” “Well regulated militia.” “WELL REGULATED.” REGULATING GUNS IS IN THE ####ING CONSTITUTION. Those guns, also, used to be musket things. Super hard to load and reload. Not like an AR-15, which is a weapon designed for modern combat and war. Designed to kill people. Not hunt deer. Not protect a house. To. Kill. Groups. Of. Humans.
“Background checks/assault weapon bans are a slippery slope — if you start there, where does it end?”
- People invoke this #### like it is logical truth. The deep, poetic irony here is that slippery slope is a logical fallacy — you are actually calling yourself out for being wrong by saying it.
- Secondly, no it is not. This gunman, was on an FBI watch list. He beat his wife. By all accounts, he had a history of mental illness. His father was a vocal and public Taliban supporter. Pretty sure those are the types of things that would maybe, probably, come up on a background check. But if you would like to defend the right of mentally unstable, wife-beating #######s to own an AR-15, then by all means invoke your freedom of speech—which is actually in the Bill of Rights—and alienate yourself from good people.
Personal anecdote: my grandpa had to sacrifice his driver’s license when he got tremors and his vision failed. And he certainly would have had it revoked when his dementia set in — because he could have hurt someone on the way to the grocery store. This double standard is mind boggling and irrational. And because it is irrational — this is important — it is emotionally rooted. People are arguing from a place deep in their hearts that is beyond logic. They feel like this is true. I understand that. Oh wait, no I don’t, that is ####ing idiotic and people keep dying. In fact, it would be amoral of me to find a middle ground! I am tired of smart people trying to play nice on this. 50+ sons and daughters were brutally mowed down by a lunatic that SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD ACCESS TO A GUN.
“But bad people will just get guns from the Black Market.”
- “Hi, is this the Black Market? I’ll have one contraband please.” The black market IS NOT A ####ING PLACE. It does not have a storefront. People don’t hang out there. They don’t have a customer service line. The black market is the distribution of illegal and illicit material. It is a HARD place to find (even harder since the Silk Road shut down for a third time), because it is not a place, and that non-place is well hidden. You don’t just go there AS A DUDE. The FBI and Police Departments around the country are devoting billions trying to track and crush and intercept the black market. To me, that sounds like a good place to force desperate, violent people to try their luck.
- Countries with strict gun laws don’t have the same gun-homicide problem we do. They probably have a black market lurking around somewhere.
- I don’t understand: So, you would just rather this crazy guy buy an assault weapon legally? Do you see where this logic is flawed? This is obvious right? Am I taking ####ing crazy pills?
“Your safety is not worth our liberty.”
- What the ####?! I seriously… Jesus christ dude. Let me compose myself and try and make some sense of the densest platitude I’ve ever tried to choke down…This isn’t ‘1984’. We aren’t asking for camera’s in your bedroom. We simply don’t want crazy-ass people to have crazy-ass guns.
“Men will find a way to kill. No ban will stop that. People committed mass murder with fertilizer and box cutters.”
- This one probably sounds really specific. Well, someone actually wrote this in a place where other people could read it. When was the last time someone used a box cutter or fertilizer to commit mass murder in this country? Are you talking 9/11? Think about all the mass murders committed with guns. I think that ratio is nearing 3 to infinity. Also, I can think of at least one other use for box cutters and fertilizer besides mass murder — namely, box cutting and fertilizing. And guess what, we regulate those. We also regulate Sudafed. But not just Sudafed, we also regulate off-brand Sudafed. It is harder for me to get nose medicine than it is to get a gun. That is so dumb that I just made myself hungry. I can’t even explain that, but it’s true.
You are right. Some men will find a way to kill. Women too. Let’s probably make that urge harder to act on, then.
“We should not politicize this tragedy.”
- Go. ####. Yourself. You lazy coward. You weak, apologist parrot. This was a gay club, filled with sexual and ethnic minorities. The attack was committed by a homegrown religious extremist. Who was enabled by the most powerful interest group in the land: The NRA. I am not politicizing anything—politics is already deeply rooted in this.
- Politics is ####ty. Politics is also a vehicle to enact change. Change is deeply needed. There were political activists in that club, guaranteed. There were people in that club who had to fight to be equal in the eyes of the law. And still, they were marginalized. Still, they were hated. And in a place where they felt safe to express themselves freely without scorn or judgement: killed. Brutally. Mercilessly. This could have been prevented. You are complicit in mass murder if you do not get political.
What is obvious is that passionate people are jumping through logical hoops to shut down regulation arguments. This is at best a flawed rhetorical exercise, and always disrespectful to the memories of the dead and their families. I am drawing a line in the sand, and so should you. I saw angry, tearful people marching down Market Street on Monday, 3,500 miles from Orlando. I watched a TV interview with a mother who didn’t know where her son was, the grim news all but a formality. I was so sad for her, and everyone else. I wept along with her. We should all weep. And we should all continue to fight the good fight. The logical fight. The fight so glaringly obvious that it shouldn’t even be a fight.
So those restrictions would certainly curtail legal use by those who follow the law. License holders are certainly dangerous to society.
Now what kind of law would you impose on criminals with no regard for laws, using guns obttained through crime and smuggling? Maybe the police could ask them nicely to turn them in during an amnesty?
Automatic life sentence with no parole for any gun crime. You are a danger to society.
In fact we can build a super prison in the arctic circle that's resupplied via airdrop.
It wouldn't need guards or fences, if you want to escape, enjoy the scenic walk, oh but we surrounded it with genetically modified super rape inclined polar bears.
If we put out a ban on fire arms it would also make it easy to control gun manufacturers since those guns could only be licensed to military and police forces, it would be a closed distribution system, if guns go missing, then you hold the manufacturers responsible by paying settlements to everyone hurt and killed by those missing weapons. If you don't like it then you are stricken from the bid lists for the Military and Police, buh buh.
You also apply the same standard to international gun manufacturers who's weapons mysteriously show up in US ports, and force sanctions on countries to control those manufacturers.
Oh and if your caught with an automatic weapon, we take that weapon load it and shoot you with it, non fatally, you get a questionnaire, do you want one in each knee, or your sack, or for females a shot cross the boobies.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
