I'm a firearms enthusiast...Ask me anything!!

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by cam_calderon

But you're taking away their rights!!! Don't tread on them.

Australia has relatively strict gun laws and we, too, are a functioning society. I wish they were stricter but at least it's not open season like the US.

Not sure such smugness is warranted less than two months after the Bondi Beach mass shooting.

[GFG#1]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

This is silly. For every mass killing committed by something other than a gun, there are likely hundreds committed by those with a gun.

I’m all for letting responsible gun owners do their thing if that’s what they want to do, but let’s not pretend guns are comparable to cars or knives in any way. Especially when killing or the potential to kill is probably near 100% of the reason why people own guns.

I don't believe that to be true in Canada. Then take into account if those shootings are committed with a legally obtained firearm it is going to be reduced. So far, the info on Tumbler Ridge appears it was not a legally obtained firearm, and the Nova Scotia Shooting was also committed with illegally obtained firearms. The focus should be on disarming criminals and stopping illegal firearms coming into the country.

I am not denying that a firearm is a tool designed for killing, I am denying that most people in Canada that own a gun purchased that with the intent of Killing Humans. It is a tool, used for sport or hunting animals for food/furs.

The way the person who is in control of the tool decides what it is going to be used for, that isn't always what it was designed for. A vehicle might be designed to get from point A to Point B, but it can be used as a weapon.

If you just compare impaired driving to firearm deaths Madd stats say 2025 was the cause of over 500 deaths.
Firearm Deaths in Canada were around 300 with 45-60% of those related to gang activity.

That is only DUI deaths related to vehicles, a lot more people are killed in Canada Every year by a motor vehicle accident.

My son competes in Both Steel Challenge and IPSC, With the new laws IPSC is going to go away as no new people can be introduced to the sport, as under current Laws you can no longer purchase a handgun in Canada. being OK with the government banning items because you don't use them should not be OK.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GFG#1

I don't believe that to be true in Canada. Then take into account if those shootings are committed with a legally obtained firearm it is going to be reduced. So far, the info on Tumbler Ridge appears it was not a legally obtained firearm, and the Nova Scotia Shooting was also committed with illegally obtained firearms. The focus should be on disarming criminals and stopping illegal firearms coming into the country.

I am not denying that a firearm is a tool designed for killing, I am denying that most people in Canada that own a gun purchased that with the intent of Killing Humans. It is a tool, used for sport or hunting animals for food/furs.

The way the person who is in control of the tool decides what it is going to be used for, that isn't always what it was designed for. A vehicle might be designed to get from point A to Point B, but it can be used as a weapon.

If you just compare impaired driving to firearm deaths Madd stats say 2025 was the cause of over 500 deaths.
Firearm Deaths in Canada were around 300 with 45-60% of those related to gang activity.

That is only DUI deaths related to vehicles, a lot more people are killed in Canada Every year by a motor vehicle accident.

My son competes in Both Steel Challenge and IPSC, With the new laws IPSC is going to go away as no new people can be introduced to the sport, as under current Laws you can no longer purchase a handgun in Canada. being OK with the government banning items because you don't use them should not be OK.

That's an odd conclusion. I'm OK with the government banning say, and private ownership of nuclear materials, I don't see that as being an unreasonable position. One of the purposes of government is to regulate things for all sorts of reasons. This is reasonable and necessary for society to function.

You take issue with a banning certain items because you find that unreasonable. That's a position you are free to take, but your own personal values are in opposition to the values others hold. Government must find a balance, and that's what they are doing. I'm not going to say it has gone to far one way or another, but this push and pull is part of the process. And for a lot of the population, they see sacrificing a hobby for safety is a reasonable trade off.

I do believe some people have a legitimate need for guns in this country, but even for them I don't see a justification for a weapon that can fire more than a few rounds in quick succession.

[undercoverbrother]

I really miss shooting

[TheIronMaiden]

I dread shooting, but I only do it as veterinarian medicine.

[Nufy]

Originally Posted by GFG#1

On a more positive note, if you do have your PAL, and are interested in shooting, Trap, Five stand, or skeet, the Aheia firearms center is a nice facility and well priced jsut south of Calgary.

Always amazed me there was a shooting range in that location.

Thought the Dewinton Nimby's would have had it shut down years ago...

[cam_calderon]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Not sure such smugness is warranted less than two months after the Bondi Beach mass shooting.

The Bondi shooting exposed cracks in the system which parliament are working to address now. It was our worst mass killing in over 30 years.

One of these per generation is pretty good, I'm happy to pat my country on the back for that, if you think that's smug I guess that's your prerogative.

[Wolven]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

That's an odd conclusion. I'm OK with the government banning say, and private ownership of nuclear materials, I don't see that as being an unreasonable position. One of the purposes of government is to regulate things for all sorts of reasons. This is reasonable and necessary for society to function.

You take issue with a banning certain items because you find that unreasonable. That's a position you are free to take, but your own personal values are in opposition to the values others hold. Government must find a balance, and that's what they are doing. I'm not going to say it has gone to far one way or another, but this push and pull is part of the process. And for a lot of the population, they see sacrificing a hobby for safety is a reasonable trade off.

I do believe some people have a legitimate need for guns in this country, but even for them I don't see a justification for a weapon that can fire more than a few rounds in quick succession.

Every time there is an event it gets me thinking about what could be done to really change the conversation. For the most part we just talk about regulating a subset of the guns out there and take incremental steps that ultimately do not solve the problem.

People like guns... but do we have to have them in our homes? I think our society needs to change its relationship with guns and I guess it comes down to whether or not private ownership of guns is necessary or if it can be replaced with public ownership of guns (Guns As A Service).

Pros of Private Ownership:
- Armed citizens in case of foreign invasion or if we need to rise up against our government
- Self defense
- Convenience

Cons of Private Ownership:
- Less control over gun ownership - Where are all the guns?
- Guns are used in crimes (robberies, etc)
- Guns are used in mass shooting events
- Cost of maintaining guns
- Cost of storing guns properly
- Risk that poor maintenance or storage could create an accident (primary example - child death)

What if gun ownership was shifted to a public service? Like a library or the tool libraries that some communities are exploring. Essentially every police station or shooting range could become a branch of the Gun Library and people could go to the local spot to check out their guns for their hunting trips or whatever.

To add benefit, using the firing range could become a free service (like going to the library).

• If you want to go for your daily / weekly / monthly range time you could book time as you see fit.
• If it becomes a busy service then setting up a booking service for range time and specific guns would be needed (like booking a tee time) and then opening additional ranges if more capacity is needed.
• If the costs get really high then add a charge for ammo used. Note: Ammo costs should actually go down as the government would be able to purchase / manufacture ammo in bulk and sell it at cost to citizens.

I think making it at the police stations would also help to move the police more into community engagement instead of just driving around enforcing laws. Encourage citizens to go to the local police station to get gun lessons from the range master would help build relationships and trust between the police and the people they serve.

In the end, I think the biggest problem with this approach is the rural homestead where they may have a gun for shooting predators that are attacking their herd. If there is a situation like that it would not be ideal to expect a person to drive into town to the nearest Gun Library to book out a gun. But, chances are they are not going to catch the predator in the heat of the moment, so they could have time to drive into town, book out a gun for a week, and then set up a trap to shoot the predator...

Then again, maybe the answer is as simple as "permanent borrowing" of the gun. The Gun Library could show up, install the appropriate gun storage, and leave the gun with the homeowner with quarterly check ins to ensure that the gun is staying stored properly and maintained. If the gun renter does not know how to maintain the gun then the service could do that during the check in for a fee.

I think there is a good argument for public ownership of firearms.

[GFG#1]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

That's an odd conclusion. I'm OK with the government banning say, and private ownership of nuclear materials, I don't see that as being an unreasonable position. One of the purposes of government is to regulate things for all sorts of reasons. This is reasonable and necessary for society to function.

You take issue with a banning certain items because you find that unreasonable. That's a position you are free to take, but your own personal values are in opposition to the values others hold. Government must find a balance, and that's what they are doing. I'm not going to say it has gone to far one way or another, but this push and pull is part of the process. And for a lot of the population, they see sacrificing a hobby for safety is a reasonable trade off.

I do believe some people have a legitimate need for guns in this country, but even for them I don't see a justification for a weapon that can fire more than a few rounds in quick succession.

I don't disagree the government needs to regulate things that can be dangerous. There are already laws in place regarding firearms. The government needs to figure out how to enforce them. If a criminal wants a gun they will get one.

Kind of like fertilizer, lots of people use it for regular use, but it can be used to make a bomb, so you can't buy excessive quantities. Government should Regulate and enforce the rules. Don't just make new rules that you think will help because you can't figure out how to enforce what you already have in place. Pretty sure gang bangers are not lining up to return there illegally obtained firearms.

Most of the population is ok with sacrificing a hobby they do not partake in for safety..

Please explain to me how more firearm restrictions are making the country more safe. I presented numbers on DUI vehicle deaths vs firearms. If you are trying to prevent deaths wouldn't you start with the items that result in the most deaths. People don't want to look at it like that because they use their car every day for normal things, just like a responsible firearm owner, uses their firearms for sports, recreation or hunting.

I would also argue that 90% of the population that is ok with the new firearm laws that were introduced, have 0 idea what the current laws are, or what needs to be done to legally obtain a firearm in this country.

In Canada you cannot own an automatic weapon
Semi-automatic is the fastest 1 trigger pull per shot.
Semi auto rifles you cannot have a magazine that holds more than 5 rounds
a semi auto handgun no more than 10 rounds
exception for .22cal
All of these laws were in place before the Liberal government introduced the new laws.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GFG#1

I don't disagree the government needs to regulate things that can be dangerous. There are already laws in place regarding firearms. The government needs to figure out how to enforce them. If a criminal wants a gun they will get one.

Kind of like fertilizer, lots of people use it for regular use, but it can be used to make a bomb, so you can't buy excessive quantities. Government should Regulate and enforce the rules. Don't just make new rules that you think will help because you can't figure out how to enforce what you already have in place. Pretty sure gang bangers are not lining up to return there illegally obtained firearms.

Most of the population is ok with sacrificing a hobby they do not partake in for safety..

Please explain to me how more firearm restrictions are making the country more safe. I presented numbers on DUI vehicle deaths vs firearms. If you are trying to prevent deaths wouldn't you start with the items that result in the most deaths. People don't want to look at it like that because they use their car every day for normal things, just like a responsible firearm owner, uses their firearms for sports, recreation or hunting.

I would also argue that 90% of the population that is ok with the new firearm laws that were introduced, have 0 idea what the current laws are, or what needs to be done to legally obtain a firearm in this country.

In Canada you cannot own an automatic weapon
Semi-automatic is the fastest 1 trigger pull per shot.
Semi auto rifles you cannot have a magazine that holds more than 5 rounds
a semi auto handgun no more than 10 rounds
exception for .22cal
All of these laws were in place before the Liberal government introduced the new laws.

If we didn't routinely look at what we can do around firearms, we'd have no laws at all. So then do the laws we have help? I think we can all agree, when comparing to our southern neighbour, they have.


I think you can agree that having a full ban would likely reduce gun violence, thus making our country more safe. I'm not advocating for that, so then it's just a point on a spectrum, and I'm willing to entertain the idea that additional restrictions get us closer to the full ban side of a safer society. And that it doesn't so much matter if citizens understand all the details, just the trade offs. Make sense?

[GFG#1]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

If we didn't routinely look at what we can do around firearms, we'd have no laws at all. So then do the laws we have help? I think we can all agree, when comparing to our southern neighbour, they have.


I think you can agree that having a full ban would likely reduce gun violence, thus making our country more safe. I'm not advocating for that, so then it's just a point on a spectrum, and I'm willing to entertain the idea that additional restrictions get us closer to the full ban side of a safer society. And that it doesn't so much matter if citizens understand all the details, just the trade offs. Make sense?

I don't actually agree with that, it is super naive to think that more laws and bans means there will be 0 guns. Criminals will still smuggle in guns; criminals will still use guns in crime.

The new laws(bans introduced) have not affected or addressed criminal behavior in anyway. What I have been saying all along, is the Laws that were in place already, were sufficient if properly enforced.

[troutman]

No Guns, Play Darts.

180!

[afc wimbledon]

The obvious solution is to allow guns but mandate they have to be stored outside your home at a local gun club or police station where they (and the owner) are supervised, guns kept in a very very secure safe so they dont end up on the street via B&E's (the amount of guns my foster kids used to steal back in the 90's doing B&E's was scary)

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GFG#1

I don't actually agree with that, it is super naive to think that more laws and bans means there will be 0 guns. Criminals will still smuggle in guns; criminals will still use guns in crime.

The new laws(bans introduced) have not affected or addressed criminal behavior in anyway. What I have been saying all along, is the Laws that were in place already, were sufficient if properly enforced.

Right, which is why I didn't say that. Perhaps re-read the words I wrote, and see if you agree with those.


"I don't agree with things you didn't say" is a tough position to have a discussion from.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GFG#1

I don't believe that to be true in Canada. Then take into account if those shootings are committed with a legally obtained firearm it is going to be reduced. So far, the info on Tumbler Ridge appears it was not a legally obtained firearm, and the Nova Scotia Shooting was also committed with illegally obtained firearms. The focus should be on disarming criminals and stopping illegal firearms coming into the country.

I am not denying that a firearm is a tool designed for killing, I am denying that most people in Canada that own a gun purchased that with the intent of Killing Humans. It is a tool, used for sport or hunting animals for food/furs.

The way the person who is in control of the tool decides what it is going to be used for, that isn't always what it was designed for. A vehicle might be designed to get from point A to Point B, but it can be used as a weapon.

If you just compare impaired driving to firearm deaths Madd stats say 2025 was the cause of over 500 deaths.
Firearm Deaths in Canada were around 300 with 45-60% of those related to gang activity.

That is only DUI deaths related to vehicles, a lot more people are killed in Canada Every year by a motor vehicle accident.

My son competes in Both Steel Challenge and IPSC, With the new laws IPSC is going to go away as no new people can be introduced to the sport, as under current Laws you can no longer purchase a handgun in Canada. being OK with the government banning items because you don't use them should not be OK.

I find these sort of responses kind of frustrating, as there seems to be a certain kind of gun owner that just refuses to be honest about what guns are, how dangerous they are, and how laws are actually to their benefit as opposed to their detriment. To be clear, I'm not about taking away your guns. Do your thing. I know a few gun owners who are responsible and level headed about this tool. But you need to be honest with yourself about what you're dealing with. Anyone who can't be shouldn't be trusted with a gun.

Bringing up Tumbler Ridge as an example of "illegal guns" probably hurts your argument more than it helps. For one, how the guns were obtained isnt confirmed (I dont think, maybe today they were). Two, this was a situation where this person was formerly licensed and where legally obtained guns were in their home. This is a mass shooter who was trained and gained experience with legal guns. If it makes you feel better than their license had lapsed, good for you, but not sure how that saves anyone's life.

In terms of deaths or mass killings being lower in Canada than the US, for example. Well, no kidding. That is due to gun laws and gun restrictions. We see it pretty much everywhere in the world: the less restrictions there are, the more deaths there are, and vice versa. Saying "oh well it's not as bad in Canada" is advocating for stricter gun laws.

When it comes to guns vs cars, it's an entirely stupid argument. Cars are a part of life. People drive vehicles for anywhere from minutes to many hours every single day, and there are 25 million+ licensed drivers in Canada. Trying to make some comparison between the two where you just look at total deaths without any consideration of usage is completely silly. In 2017, for example, there were 7.2 vehicle-related deaths per 100,000 licensed drivers. In the same year, there were 36.5 firearm-related deaths per 100,000 licensed gun owners. So like-for-like, guns are at minimum 5x more deadly than a car. And that's not even considering the fact that there are thousands and thousands of cars on the road every single day and the prevalence of actual gun usage accounts for a minute fraction of that. If you could compare deaths per time someone has their hands on a gun vs deaths per time someone has their hands on a steering wheel, you wouldn't even try to make the argument.

Being ok with the government banning things because you don't use them is not OK. You're right. But being ok with the government banning and restricting things because they are a categorically unsafe weapon that designed solely to kill and requires high levels of restrictions and responsibility to use safely, and are overrepresented in deaths compared to their usage, is perfectly acceptable.

If you can't be honest in a conversation about guns you aren't responsible enough to own a gun, period. And since it's a comparison you like, it goes the same for vehicles.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GFG#1

I don't believe that to be true in Canada. Then take into account if those shootings are committed with a legally obtained firearm it is going to be reduced. So far, the info on Tumbler Ridge appears it was not a legally obtained firearm, and the Nova Scotia Shooting was also committed with illegally obtained firearms. The focus should be on disarming criminals and stopping illegal firearms coming into the country.

It's been reported that the suspect previous had had a firearm license but it expired. So presumably a youth permit where they legally learned how to use guns.

Has it been reported that the guns were not legally obtained by someone originally?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

It's been reported that the suspect previous had had a firearm license but it expired. So presumably a youth permit where they legally learned how to use guns.

Has it been reported that the guns were not legally obtained by someone originally?

Details of the guns used in the shooting have not been released. The only thing that has been confirmed is that there were guns in the house that were removed at one point, and then returned at the request of the legal gun owner.

So the only two things we know for sure is that the shooter did have a legal right to use firearms as recently as 2024, and that there were legally owned guns in the house around the same time.

Unfortunately, from what I’ve read, one of the gaps in Canada’s legal system is that doctors can only report patients that threaten to use guns to kill themselves or others. But they can’t report patients that own guns who may pose a significant risk for violence if that threat is not made.

[SutterBrother]

The UK went to extraordinary lengths to make gun ownership difficult following the 1996 Dunblane school shooting. Some of the strictest in the world.

https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...hool-shooting/

There hasn't been a school shooting since.

Ban guns = less kids deaths

I sincerely hope Canada uses this incident to do the same. I want to take your guns, not because you're an irresponsible owner, but because if something happens to you, we don't know where your gun ends up.

[cam_calderon]

The Permanent National Firearms Amnesty began on 1 July 2021. By 30 June 2024, Australians had surrendered 40,936 firearms and weapons.

Something like this should at least be attempted.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by cam_calderon

The Permanent National Firearms Amnesty began on 1 July 2021. By 30 June 2024, Australians had surrendered 40,936 firearms and weapons.

Something like this should at least be attempted.

sounds like a bunch of good kunts