Canadians... What's it really like?

[scanny]

Hunting rifles have their place and purpose. I am against the uncontrolled sale of hand and semi/automatic black rifles. The ones that are used in all mass killings. I do have a can of bear spray that I started carrying with me when I camp with my kids.

Here we go again. First of all why semi-auto are not good for hunting? SKS can get you deer, coyotes etc. Mini-14 is used for hunting as well as other semis Some people hunting coyotes with Tavor and moose with SVT. Then going to black rifles, how furniture and stock make rifle more dangerous, you are gun owner you should understand that AR-15 is no more dangerous than Lee-Enfield or your’ favorite hunting rifle.

And see, although you don’t expect any danger from wildlife, you still carry bear spray. So why you are against carrying a handgun, like 10mm Glock or .357 revolver. It’s better tool than bear spray if you know how to use it. Bear spray doesn’t work very well in rain and you need to watch wind direction.

 

[nasko]

Here we go again. First of all why semi-auto are not good for hunting? SKS can get you deer, coyotes etc. Mini-14 is used for hunting as well as other semis Some people hunting coyotes with Tavor and moose with SVT. Then going to black rifles, how furniture and stock make rifle more dangerous, you are gun owner you should understand that AR-15 is no more dangerous than Lee-Enfield or your' favorite hunting rifle.

And see, although you don't expect any danger from wildlife, you still carry bear spray. So why you are against carrying a handgun, like 10mm Glock or .357 revolver. It's better tool than bear spray if you know how to use it. Bear spray doesn't work very well in rain and you need to watch wind direction.

I will reply since you ask. That is obviously my opinion. IMO all weapons that have the ability to fire multiple shots in seconds (semi or fully automatic assault rifles) should not be sold uncontrolled. If someone decides to use a bolt action rifle he/she might do some damage but won't be able to kill 58 people in less than 10 minutes, or 26 people in less than 4. That is just my opinion. These assualt weapons were designed for one thing - killing people. Yes, they can be used for hunting or practice but their design was to cause as much damage as possible in a short amount of time. That is why I am against their uncontrolled sale to the public. I like it here that people at least got to go take a test and pass through screening before they get their PAL license.
On the handgun issue, I probably would not mind if people were allowed to take handguns in the deep country, but I am definitely against the ability to carry in cities. How do you control that? How can you control where it is allowed and where it is not? Hence my opinion against handguns.

 

[hemifoot]

please stop encouraging this guy to spew.you're just wasting your breath and you won't get him to see your side.it's just going to end up like the global warming/holidays thread. he's already hijacked this one to serve his own agenda.

 

[calicamper]

I’ve always wondered if those who go out to quiet woodsy places to shoot at things pick up their lead after? Given how many people seem to migrate to shooting spots it doesnt take long before the area qualifies for a superfund clean up. I like shooting as much as the next guy but I try to avoid spraying lead all over what little woods we’ve got left.

 

[2025 deleted member]

I've always wondered if those who go out to quiet woodsy places to shoot at things pick up their lead after? Given how many people seem to migrate to shooting spots it doesnt take long before the area qualifies for a superfund clean up. I like shooting as much as the next guy but I try to avoid spraying lead all over what little woods we've got left.

Some do the right thing, others don't. I think this is how it works with all outdoor activities from my experience.

 

[hemifoot]

shells,yes.exploded stuff,yes,lead??how? i do set up a shooting table behind the truck tailgate and most of the brass ends up in the box.the shotgun shells i rake up.

 

[SigSense]

please stop encouraging this guy to spew.you're just wasting your breath and you won't get him to see your side.

I believe you! When I run into Nasko's kind, I am reminded of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=452XjnaHr1A

"Some men you just can't reach."

 

[Gtdad]

First of all even if you get prospectors license and pass wilderness carry course CFO will issue a wilderness carry permit only if you've been a prospector for a while, have proof that prospecting gives you at least 50% of your income. Which makes wilderness carry off limits for outdoor enthusiasts. As per bear bangers, bear spray or bear bells, you probably understand yourself that a .44 works better. After all prospectors are allowed to have a gun, they don't spend weeks in the bush rely only on bear bangers as a wildlife defense. I know about statistics, but nobody wants to be part of that 0.01% of whatever statistics say. We have home insurance and spare tires and some have of us fire extinguishers, survival kits and other emergency stuff we might never have to use as well. But we still have it just in case. I just want to hear a good reason why a person can’t carry handgun in wilderness.

By the way if we follow statistics guns are not really worth mentioning, outdoor pools cause more deaths than guns and mass shootings are statistically insignificant comparing to total number of deaths.

As per full auto – I really don’t see why people so afraid of it, its magic power is hugely overrated in my opinion and criminals have it anyway. Let’s not tell others about what have purpose and what’s not because If we start to ban things based on our perception of “purpose” we can ban nearly everything.

I'm no stranger to full auto , have fired mg34, sten and mini uzi.
Having said that I know that FA is useless except for non civilian purposes.
Canada does not need FA .
Our laws maybe cumbersome but we have a safer place to live than our southern neighbours.

 

[scanny]

I'm no stranger to full auto , have fired mg34, sten and mini uzi.
Having said that I know that FA is useless except for non civilian purposes.
Canada does not need FA .
Our laws maybe cumbersome but we have a safer place to live than our southern neighbours.

What really useless are sports cars, nobody need to go over 100 km/h in Canada, Canada will be safer place without sports cars. Nobody needs dogs except for hunting, dogs in city are unnatural and danger to others, Canada will be safer without dogs. Should I continue what list of what people don't need and how make society safer place?

If people keep telling others what they don't need our free society will end up to be a prison.

Please tell me, do you seriously think that if you legally owned full auto rifle you were danger to society? And the only thing which keeps you from killing people is absence of full auto firearm in your possession?

 

[rnArmy]

As an ICU/Trauma nurse, if you really want to save lives then we need to ban alcohol. How many bad things (often with fatal results) have happened because of alcohol? Drunk driving is probably the first thing that comes to mind, but how many families have been destroyed by alcohol? How many lives ruined secondary to someone else having been drinking?

If you're really serious about saving lives, and want to make society a safer place, ban alcohol. Alcohol is useless too - nobody really NEEDS alcohol. I don't care if YOU drink responsibly; if others can't, then we should just ban alcohol for everyone. There are laws about drunk driving, but people still do it. Alcohol related injuries (physical and psychological) have a WAY more impact on the population as a whole than guns used improperly. Ask any ER nurse. Raise your hand if someone's problem with alcohol has negatively affected you; alcoholic relative, someone you knew injured or killed by a drunk driver? Have you or someone you've known been under the influence and had a negative consequence (ruined relationship, injured themselves or others, woke up next to an ugly stranger, etc.)? Negative consequences don't always have to end in death or dismemberment or disfiguration. How many folks are in jail or done jail time related to something they did while under the influence? Now raise your hand if someone who owned a gun has ever negatively affected you related to the gun itself?

So how come I never hear folks talking about banning alcohol? Could it be the anti-gunners have an agenda and their real motive isn't trying to save lives? You hear the anti-gunners talking about "if it could just save one life...", but it is never in the context of banning alcohol (or smoking - that's a whole other rant - you don't need those either - but you die a lot slower from smoking so it isn't as dramatic). If they're so interested in "saving just one life...", ask them their stance on abortion (not starting an abortion argument - just using it as an example). Heck; ask them their stance on alcohol. To get the best "bang for your buck" (pun intended) when it comes to saving lives, ban alcohol. Society (and the world) would be a much saver place.

But every argument they could come up with for NOT banning alcohol could also be used for NOT banning guns, but for some reason they can't see it (or they don't get it). "But I like alcohol"; "I've never had any negative consequences from alcohol"'; "I am a responsible drinker"; "There are laws in place for who can purchase alcohol"; "There are laws telling you what not to do in relation to alcohol consumption"; etc. Change the word "alcohol" or "drinker" to "guns". And if I could have the deciding vote as to ban alcohol or not, I would vote... not. Sounds weird after my previous rant, but you can't legislate (or make illegal) everything you think is potentially unsafe (or you just don't like). Then you just become a nanny state.

Oh wait; didn't we try making alcohol illegal once? I forget what happened....

 

[scanny]

Sounds like the typical, juicy gun owners vs non fight happening, which I've no interest in, but I do want to address this:



1. He didn't say he carried bear spray to use against bears. He could be worried about people, and be carrying bear spray as that's legal to carry, whereas a hand gun is not (even with an RPAL here in BC). Yes, you "shouldn't" even think about using bear spray against people, and should have a legit reason for having it on you, but taking ethics out of the question, having bear spray on you is by far the lesser of the two evils, and is 100x easier to justify having on you to law enforcement.

2. In the vast, vast majority of wild animal attacks, bear spray is infinitely better to have than a firearm. Go on any hunting-related forum (ie. full of people that actually spend time in the wilderness and encounter wild animals, instead of arguing about guns on forums), do a search, ask some questions, and you'll see the same exact conclusions from the majority of "firearms enthusiasts." I know because I've done that exact research when I was considering purchasing a shotgun for bear protection while hiking in grizzly country.

Most bear attacks happen when you spook the bear, and you have a split second to react. You will be lucky to draw, chamber, aim and hit the bear, much less kill it. That little glock will never penetrate the bear's skull, and will do nothing but piss the animal off (if you were lucky enough to hit it in the first place). By comparison, bear spray requires little to no training, borderline no aiming, and greatly increases the average person's chances of deterring an attack. It is by no means a magical solution to every situation, but when it comes to protecting yourself from a wild animal, it is hands down the better choice.

Just wanted to clarify that my point was that law prohibiting us having handgun in wilderness doesn’t contribute to people safety. I'm really curious what people have against handguns and was just asking for any good reason for prohibiting handguns in the wilderness. Other than wildlife attacks happens very rarely and bear spray is better for average person. That’s what people say when they can’t think of any reason of what’s wrong with having a handgun on you when you’re on a week camping trip in the middle of nowhere.
It’s not my intention to start discussion about bear spray effectiveness, I just mentioned it to show that even when you don’t expect any danger from wildlife and saying that you don’t need a gun, you carry something for self defence just in case because it might happen to you. And we were talking about Ontario – we don’t have grizzly bears here, 10mm is more than adequate round for black bears, it’s not really little. I would prefer probably .357 revolver though.

 

[scanny]

I will reply since you ask. That is obviously my opinion. IMO all weapons that have the ability to fire multiple shots in seconds (semi or fully automatic assault rifles) should not be sold uncontrolled. If someone decides to use a bolt action rifle he/she might do some damage but won't be able to kill 58 people in less than 10 minutes, or 26 people in less than 4. That is just my opinion. These assualt weapons were designed for one thing - killing people. Yes, they can be used for hunting or practice but their design was to cause as much damage as possible in a short amount of time. That is why I am against their uncontrolled sale to the public. I like it here that people at least got to go take a test and pass through screening before they get their PAL license.
On the handgun issue, I probably would not mind if people were allowed to take handguns in the deep country, but I am definitely against the ability to carry in cities. How do you control that? How can you control where it is allowed and where it is not? Hence my opinion against handguns.

I see your point. I don’t mind people having training and some screening before they buy guns. But I’d say it’s a slippery slope when you begin to divide guns to more dangerous and less dangerous. If you have smooth bolt in your bolt action rifle you can shot few times per minute. Maybe a shot every 2-3 seconds. Maybe a shot in 5-10 seconds if you’re slow. And your aim is better when you shot singles, so potentially it could be more effective than full-auto. Pump action or lever action shots even faster than bolt action.

In my opinion all those catch phrases like “assault weapons” and “designed to kill people” are just social engineering. How about being designed to protect our lives and liberties?



Full auto is already prohibited so they will have a run on semi. When they’re done with semi, they will come against pump, lever and bolt action. There will always be hunters which will say that nobody need anything except break action shotgun. So when there’s no firearms left in the country, do you believe that gun grabbers will retire and donate their organizations budgets to charities? I doubt it, I think they will start to fight those last shotguns then knives, axes and other stuff “nobody needs in the city”



They don’t care about people and safety – they just like to impose their views on everybody and make a living of it. Bad people will kill people regardless of availability of tools, we already see that. Most killings happens not with guns and mass killings are shifting to cars and trucks. I don’t like to give ideas, but there’s a lot of ways to do mass killings without guns, sometimes more deadly than guns.



As per handguns, I don’t think that we will be ever allowed to carry handguns here in Canada, it’s more looks like handguns will be banned eventually because unfortunately a lot of gun owners instead of being united, keep saying that nobody needs this kind of gun or that kind of gun. So all guns eventually will be banned one by one unless we change our attitudes of course.



Coming back to original statements, I don’t think Canadian gun laws are good, in my opinion those laws don’t keep us much safer, they just making paper criminals from normal people and aiming to disarm general population. Criminals and crazies can get any gun illegally if they want to. I don’t feel any need to carry a gun in my everyday life, but I want it to be my decision.



By the way controlling handguns in wilderness is very easy if you insist on controlling it. All government has to do is to issue wilderness carry licence after appropriate training, define wilderness (draw a line on the map, or specify how far from city you can carry). You bring you gun as per transportation rules, as soon as you at destination an out of car and out you can load and holster your gun, easy as that. This will make people a little bit safer out there and will bring some money in licence fees to the government.

 

[SigSense]

As an ICU/Trauma nurse, if you really want to save lives then we need to ban alcohol.

Agree with your point 100%. We recently learned that medical errors are now the third leading cause of deaths in America. I say we ban medical errors. Better yet, ban all medical care -- that way nobody can die prematurely from an error (sarc).

Researchers: Medical errors now third leading cause of death in United States

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...eath-in-united-states/?utm_term=.db6ae09654cb

 

[Gtdad]

So once again here we go, if you check the stats on crime in the US and canada you'll see clearly that the violent crime rate is higher in canada and the weapons of choice are knives, axes and anything sharp, so which is better, Being shot or stabbed? Sorry north boy but dead is dead no matter how you get there! And you can keep your precious government health care! Also before this gets too far out of hand, keep your politics to yourself before some lock happy moderator locks another thread!

Do your your research. US is ranked #1 for violent crime (lower number is worse) while canada is 13th.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Canada/United-States/Crime
My politics are pertinent as I am Canadian Citizen not a "North Boy"
Seeing as this thread is called "Canadians... What's it really like?" maybe you should leave this thread.

 

[Gtdad]

What really useless are sports cars, nobody need to go over 100 km/h in Canada, Canada will be safer place without sports cars. Nobody needs dogs except for hunting, dogs in city are unnatural and danger to others, Canada will be safer without dogs. Should I continue what list of what people don't need and how make society safer place?

If people keep telling others what they don't need our free society will end up to be a prison.

Please tell me, do you seriously think that if you legally owned full auto rifle you were danger to society? And the only thing which keeps you from killing people is absence of full auto firearm in your possession?

Absolutely not but I also am old enough to realize how useless FA is in realty for non civies.