Moderator: Excalibur Marketing Dude
Big58cal wrote: I've got a Ruger Mini 14 Ranch Rifle with a folding stock on it. With the folding stock, I believe that gun is either very restricted or prohibited up there.
On its initial publication in 1998, John R. Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime drew both lavish praise and heated criticism. More than a decade later, it continues to play a key role in ongoing arguments over gun-control laws: despite all the attacks by gun-control advocates, no one has ever been able to refute Lott’s simple, startling conclusion that more guns mean less crime. Relying on the most rigorously comprehensive data analysis ever conducted on crime statistics and right-to-carry laws, the book directly challenges common perceptions about the relationship of guns, crime, and violence. For this third edition, Lott draws on an additional ten years of data—including provocative analysis of the effects of gun bans in Chicago and Washington, D.C—that brings the book fully up to date and further bolsters its central contention.
Big58cal wrote:Just as an FYI, if any of ya'll are looking for a good book to read, check out More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws by John R. Lott. The 3rd edition is the latest one. You can get them pretty cheap off of Amazon.com.
Interesting. Wonder what the actual crime rate is down there (not just the official published rate)? --I know they have a chewing gum ban.Allan wrote:I had the opportunity to visit Singapore a few yeras ago. I totally understand that it is a tiny country with very little natural wild areas, but not only is it illegal to own a firearm, it is illegal to posses a bullet.
Perhps I am comparing apple to oranges.
Excellent explanation TPM - Thanks for clearling it up for those down south of the border who may think it's complicated as it isn't.TPM wrote:Actually Big58cal, your buddy could have legally brought the handgun up to Canada but it probably wouldn't be worth the hassle. It's true, handguns are restricted up here but they're not prohibited. Just a quick run down on gun ownership in Canada for our American friends. In order to legally obtain any gun in Canada you must have a PAL (Possession/Acquisition License). In order to get this you must be over the age of 18, have a clean background (there is some subjectivity to this) and you must pass a written and practical safety test. Your PAL is good for five years at which time you must renew. The safety testing only has to be done once. The renewal is just a matter of filling out the application and sending it in. There are two levels of PALs. One is for non-restricted and one is for restricted. For the most part non-restricted guns include your long guns and restricted are mostly handguns. Of course there are a few exceptions but this but this definition covers 99% of the guns out there. Once our long gun registry is scrapped buying any rifle or shotgun will be a matter of showing your PAL and taking the gun home. Restricted guns are a bit more complicated. If your buddy wanted a handgun in Canada he would first have to have a restricted PAL. He would then have to join a handgun range. When he buys a handgun he is required to show the local firearms officer prove of membership when he goes to register it. He would also require an ATT permit (Authorization To Transport) in order to transport it to and from the range. It is a bit of a pain (I used to own handguns) but a lot of guys (and gals) do it.
Another big difference between Canadian and American gun laws is that Canadian laws are pretty all governed at the Federal level. There is virtually no Provincial or Municipal level laws at this time to speak of. One set of rules for the whole country. This means that as long as I have my PAL I can buy a gun anywhere in Canada or take a gun anywhere in Canada without having to worry about local laws and restrictions.
First off, you do have to remember that you do not have here a 2nd amendment that contains as part of it a right to bear arms. That will explain a lot.Big58cal wrote:Yes, in my opinion it is a matter of trust. Why else would you have to have a membership to a gun range and have to have a permit to transport a handgun? Do they not trust that someone may just want to plink with it and think that they're going to go out and commit a crime with it? Why can't someone just have a handgun that they hunt with and shoot on their own land without having to show that they have a "valid reason" for having the gun and have to pay membership fees and permit fees? That tells me that the government doesn't trust it's citizens and wants to further control them.
Currently, I can walk into any gun store in my state and purchase any type of firearm I want (with the exception of fully automatic). I commit to purchase the gun, fill out the form, the dealer calls in and checks my criminal record, and I walk out with the gun. I don't need any permits, memberships, or transportation licenses. I have a shooting range set up in my field at home so I don't have to drive anywhere to shoot.
As for the guy I used to work with, I trusted that he knew the laws up there better than I did. Since TPM explained the process, I can see that "could have" taken it up there, but chose not to explore all that was required for it to happen. I didn't know all of the laws involved, but I did know that they were restricted. What all was entailed in the restriction though I wasn't aware of.
As for it being a convoluted process, I still believe that it is. The government doesn't trust it's citizens so they make them jump through hoops, knowing full well that some people just won't want to hassle with it. I mean how assinine is it to ban weapons because they "look" scary? If that be the case, why not ban certain people from society in general? The same logic applies.
Ben, I don't feel that you and I will ever agree on this. You have your opinions on the matter and I have mine.
CanuckBen wrote:The non-restricted Canadian Firearm Safety Course is a complete joke. Anyone who can put two + two together will pass that "exam". The practical test? C'mon now, that's even worst. And that's all in the same 7hr course! Should it be more complicated & thorough? Absolutely!!
Would you also be for or against maintaining the Restricted Canadian Firearm Safety Course?
You have to remember J. Krug and as I’ve said before, we do not in Canada have a right to own a firearm; it’s only a privilege. Change that status and you’ll have grounds to make a point as to why you should be able to own any types of firearms. Would that also include those in the prohibited list?
Hunting with any type of firearms however is a whole different thing – you’re mixing up federal and provincial laws and regulations here as provinces are free to opt-out of these laws.
But say that someone passes both safety courses, obtains both types of licences and you get ready to go shoot some frozen milk jugs in your backyard or at the cottage, but you decided as a responsible citizen to look up your city’s or municipality’s firearm discharge by-laws. Not sure about your home town of Amherstburg, but a vast majority of cities and municipalities will not allow the discharge of firearms on their territories. Won’t you then end up back at the range nonetheless?
Even your Conservative party has said on many occasions that they do not intend to bring any amendments to the Criminal Code and Firearm Act in regards to the restricted firearms. I am sure that you must find that quite disappointing.
Like I've said before, the definition of “complicated” differs quite a bit from person to another. When you apply it to what it takes to own a firearm in Canada, I personally see it as a very small drop of water in the 'ol bucket of life.
