Simple n00b question about prohibited pistols

Because 25 and 32 calibers are WAY more dangerous than say a 357 Magnum!:p

Honestly, it makes no sense and is just more Canadian gun law stupidity.
 
because they say so- there is no logical reason- the original reason was that most of the "saturday night specials" were in 25 and 32, ( cheap, easily concealable guns) but now they make 9mm and 45s with roughly the same dimensions as the 32s- alright, i'm taking a little license but you get the idea- the same goes for "shorty " or snub noses- anything shorter than 4.1 or so inches- it's really a nefarious plot to rid the country of all handguns- first they prohibit anything shorter than 4 inches and grandfather those already in country, then quietly raise it to 5, then 6 , wait for each generation of grandfathered individuals to die off, and eventually presto no handguns in canada
where did they come up with 4 inches did you ask?- they went to all the old green cards and found the most popular barrel size, then made that prohibited
 
Laniru said:
Because 25 and 32 calibers are WAY more dangerous than say a 357 Magnum!:p Honestly, it makes no sense and is just more Canadian gun law stupidity.
Click to expand...

No.....it is American gun law stupidity. For a long while, these two small calibers were what every respectable home boy used in the 'hood'. So the lawmakers there decided to just ban them. So then the homies just moved up to 9's and 45's - much more respectable caliber! :p

But then Canada had to adopt their stupid law - on second thought, mayby it is Canadian gun law stupidity. :D
 
By classifying .25, .32 and under 105mm barreled handguns as prohibited, over half the handguns in the system could be ultimately confiscated without compensation.
 
It's an obvious attempt to rid the country of 12(6) class firearms within one generation of firearms owners...:(
 
Last edited:
To me, I don't see a big problem with them eliminating the really small barrel sizes, but the more medium sizes, I don't agree with at all.

And I think it's absolutely ridiculous that they would outright ban a pistol with such a calibre.

If anything would make sense, they would ban a pistol like a Deagle .50 AE. At least then they could argue that it's too powerful.

Still though. The whole thing is screwed up. I think we should keep the conservatives in power for several years to come, if nothing else, to keep the gun laws the way they are, and to ultimately soften them up!
 
"They" really don't "need" to ban anything. Legally owned handguns are already heavily regulated. "They" should go after the illegal possessors/users & leave the legit guys alone... ;)
 
To me, I don't see a big problem with them eliminating the really small barrel sizes, but the more medium sizes, I don't agree with at all.....""""


Well I see a problem with them eliminating anything. We should encourage all gun owners to act unilaterally and condemn the elimination or banning of any gun, regardless of size, shape and colour. Engineering has nothing to do with crime.
 
potatoes.gif
 
The 25 and 32 calibre portion is redundant This most likely was planned in.. The barrel length component would have caught all the guns of interest. When C-68 was being debated it is possible that the barrel length criteria could have been dropped. The calibre component could have still caught a lot of guns of interest. It turned out nothing was dropped so we end up with redundancy.
 
ilovepotatos said:
To me, I don't see a big problem with them eliminating the really small barrel sizes, but the more medium sizes, I don't agree with at all.

And I think it's absolutely ridiculous that they would outright ban a pistol with such a calibre.

If anything would make sense, they would ban a pistol like a Deagle .50 AE. At least then they could argue that it's too powerful.

Still though. The whole thing is screwed up. I think we should keep the conservatives in power for several years to come, if nothing else, to keep the gun laws the way they are, and to ultimately soften them up!
Click to expand...

agree - we need to reverse the gun laws, not just soften them.

There is a problem when one accepts the elimination of anything- be it based on size, caliber, etc...

When bill c68 was being developed, there a was a paper put out for public comment. it stated very clearly and specifically that the reason for banning what they did was to cut the number of handguns by 1/2.

Government policy is to eliminate guns from public hands -period. they have adopted a divide and conquer policy- first the full autos, then the short handguns, then certain semis based on appearance, etc. We saw the next step announced by the Lieberals- all handguns, certain semi autos, etc.

Every time they introduced more restrictions the unaffected ones breathed a sigh of relief ""Thank G-d it wasn't me" and - "nobody needs a ###X with YYY shots anyway..." and the shooting community was so fragmented that they got away with it, so we have the mess we have now.

we are finally starting to realize that what affects one of us affects us all...because trust me - we are all next.. To borrow an analogy, we looked at the face of Satan in the last election and escaped this time... I don't think we'll get any more warnings - and our enemy is still out there ,and will not give up...
 
ilovepotatos said:
To me, I don't see a big problem with them eliminating the really small barrel sizes,
Click to expand...

:eek: Wrong. Banning any gun says that the gun is the problem, not the user. With that precedent set, they ban more, and so on until they're all gone. "They" want all your guns, not just the .25's and .32's.

The net effect of the .25 / .32 and "short barell" bans were to make shooting a lot more expensive than it used to be, cutting out a certain number of shooters with limited means. Which is a step in the direction that "they" want.
 
I have seen the error in my ways. Now it is my duty as a PAL owner (I'm sending in my application tomorrow! :D ) to persuade as many other people in my network that the gun laws are going the wrong way.
 
you might think there is no use for the small 25 and 32 pistols and you will never want one but I'm sure the first time someone tries to give you some and you can't have them you will be pissed!
 
If the issue was concealability how about this. I have three .455 Webleys, a 6 inch, a 5 inch and 4 inch. One or two inches of barrel does not make much difference to the sheer mass of those old revolvers nor the firepower. However the 4 inch is a no no
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom