What makes military style guns restricted/non restricted?

Roddy said:
There should be some discretion. When they duct tape an AR upper onto a new lower and fire one round, destroying the frankengun in the process, and then call the lower an AR variant. Would discretion not be appropriate?
Click to expand...
True, I was thinking of complete AR15 pattern rifles. I think my general statement is still valid--rifles aren't restricted because they look scary. Prohib, maybe, but not restricted.
 
If you want to have a good chuckle (and have some time to kill)... Try to get your MP to find the answer why some firearms in 223 are restricted, some are prohibited and some are non-restricted...

Or better yet, ask your MP for the empirical data used to create the prohibited firearms list.
 
Obviously there are a lot of bitter people answering here, so I will try to put an objective spin on it.

The answer is that there is a mixture of criteria, which are sometimes based on barrel length, and sometimes based on "just because".

Barrel length issues are generally based on how concealable the firearm is in case it is meant to be used for murder, and Prohibited firearms are also based on calibre and barrel length, once again because these firearms have a really high probability of being used for murder.

Then you have rifles like the AR family which are Restricted instead of NR, compared to similarly capable semi-auto rifles like an SKS, Tavor, Benelli MR1, etc. In these cases it is based on a thought that a person planning something bad is generally going to use an AR, which makes them scarier than the other options.

Further, you have to take into account the magazine capacity rule, too, and at that point it arguably gets even more stupid. I have a Restricted 10mm Glock G20 pistol, for which I am allowed 10 rounds, and someone else with an AR15 is only allowed 5 rounds. In close spaces, theoretically I could do far more damage with my 10 round pistol than a 5 round AR, but that would be missing the bigger point:

Any of these "laws" are completely ludicrous if they are based on a probability of reducing murder, because the last thing anyone committing murder is worried about is if they are also committing firearms violations while they are committing murder.

Therefore, arguably you end up with a lot of bad guys still using Prohibited pistols, and rifles with Prohibited 30-round mags, because they don't care about such regulations. And you have completely law-abiding people on the other side of the fence, who by the good of their hearts are re-loading five round mags ad-nauseum at the firing point of a range, for fear that they could be sent to jail if they tried to get more than one grouping out of a magazine.

In summary, it is a combination of factors based on how dangerous some people think some types of firearms are. Their decisions are based on some logic, because if a firearm is more concealable and carries more rounds in the mag, of course a person could do more damage with it. However, what is completely ridiculous is that the irony is somehow completely lost on the decision makers that inevitably they are only restricting law-abiding people because criminals with malicious intent don't really care SFA about barrel length or magazine capacity.
 
Petamocto said:
you end up with a lot of bad guys still using Prohibited pistols, and rifles with Prohibited 30-round mags
Click to expand...
I know what you're trying to say, but I'm almost 100% sure you're wrong here...especially about the full-cap mags. When was the last time you heard of a crime committed in Canada where the culprit used a full-cap prohib mag? Criminals in Canada almost never use those types of firearms, which makes the laws even less valid.
 
they look in their crystal ball ...

dont try to use any logic when the time to classified a lot of thing should not be on the restricted or prohib list , they even prohib a gun that doesn't exist the g11 juts because it was in the book they used that year ...
 
Petamocto said:
Obviously there are a lot of bitter people answering here, so I will try to put an objective spin on it.

The answer is that there is a mixture of criteria, which are sometimes based on barrel length, and sometimes based on "just because".

Barrel length issues are generally based on how concealable the firearm is in case it is meant to be used for murder, and Prohibited firearms are also based on calibre and barrel length, once again because these firearms have a really high probability of being used for murder.

Then you have rifles like the AR family which are Restricted instead of NR, compared to similarly capable semi-auto rifles like an SKS, Tavor, Benelli MR1, etc. In these cases it is based on a thought that a person planning something bad is generally going to use an AR, which makes them scarier than the other options.

Further, you have to take into account the magazine capacity rule, too, and at that point it arguably gets even more stupid. I have a Restricted 10mm Glock G20 pistol, for which I am allowed 10 rounds, and someone else with an AR15 is only allowed 5 rounds. In close spaces, theoretically I could do far more damage with my 10 round pistol than a 5 round AR, but that would be missing the bigger point:

Any of these "laws" are completely ludicrous if they are based on a probability of reducing murder, because the last thing anyone committing murder is worried about is if they are also committing firearms violations while they are committing murder.

Therefore, arguably you end up with a lot of bad guys still using Prohibited pistols, and rifles with Prohibited 30-round mags, because they don't care about such regulations. And you have completely law-abiding people on the other side of the fence, who by the good of their hearts are re-loading five round mags ad-nauseum at the firing point of a range, for fear that they could be sent to jail if they tried to get more than one grouping out of a magazine.

In summary, it is a combination of factors based on how dangerous some people think some types of firearms are. Their decisions are based on some logic, because if a firearm is more concealable and carries more rounds in the mag, of course a person could do more damage with it. However, what is completely ridiculous is that the irony is somehow completely lost on the decision makers that inevitably they are only restricting law-abiding people because criminals with malicious intent don't really care SFA about barrel length or magazine capacity.
Click to expand...

You are trying to apply some sort of logic that doesn't exist to our firearms law. This is your made up logic.

Guys aren't bitter, the reality is our laws are really that arbitrary and have nothing to do with keeping us safe and everything to do with civilian disarmament.
 
Dad003 said:
they look in their crystal ball ...

dont try to use any logic when the time to classified a lot of thing should not be on the restricted or prohib list , they even prohib a gun that doesn't exist the g11 juts because it was in the book they used that year ...
Click to expand...

Beat me to it. The H&K G11 is the best example of these stupid laws. Even if you were to somehow get a hold of one of the handfull of these rifles ever made, where would you get ammo?!
 
Master-G said:
I know what you're trying to say, but I'm almost 100% sure you're wrong here...especially about the full-cap mags. When was the last time you heard of a crime committed in Canada where the culprit used a full-cap prohib mag? Criminals in Canada almost never use those types of firearms, which makes the laws even less valid.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'd guess around 92-96% of firearms used in crimes had a prohib full cap mag, seeing as that's the rough percentage of crime guns that were illegally imported in the first place. I somehow doubt that after going to the trouble to smuggle them in, they suddenly decided "oh, crap, I better put a 10 cent pop rivet in the mags of this illegally imported firearm, or Sgt Preston of the Yukon will really give me what for..."
 
Liberal Logic....don't even try to figure it out. Most classifications had absolutely nothing to do with logic but rather that it was "Scary looking" to the people in charge of classifying Firearms ..... If the Liberals get into power next election I personally think it is going to be much worse than the last time.
 
After the 1989 Montreal massacre, the RCMP went loonie tunes and banned pretty much every military style rifle available (except for the mini 14 which was the weapon used in the massacre) and restricted semi auto magazine to 5 rounds. The only reason that they didn't prohibit the AR15 like they did all the other guns! was because it was a popular rifle used in sporting competitions such as 3 gun.
 
84wh1 said:
After the 1989 Montreal massacre, the RCMP went loonie tunes and banned pretty much every military style rifle available (except for the mini 14 which was the weapon used in the massacre) and restricted semi auto magazine to 5 rounds. The only reason that they didn't prohibit the AR15 like they did all the other guns! was because it was a popular rifle used in sporting competitions such as 3 gun.
Click to expand...

Funny (not litterally) thing about the Dawson college thing was the @hole was using a beretta CX storm and it's not even in the prohib or restricted list today. That's a WTF!
 
84wh1 said:
After the 1989 Montreal massacre, the RCMP went loonie tunes and banned pretty much every military style rifle available (except for the mini 14 which was the weapon used in the massacre) and restricted semi auto magazine to 5 rounds. The only reason that they didn't prohibit the AR15 like they did all the other guns! was because it was a popular rifle used in sporting competitions such as 3 gun.
Click to expand...

The RCMP weren't responsible for the post-Polytechnique reclassifications. Kim Campbell and the Progressive Conservatives were, as authors of Bill C-17 and related OICs; -followed by Allan Rock and the Chretien Liberals. The latter of which introduced Bill C-68 and yet more OICs prohibiting "scary" black guns.

Incidentally, the AR-15 was set to meet the same fate as the UZI, FAL & AK-47, - and would've - but for the efforts of the DCRA and David A. Tomlinson and his National Firearms Association. They successfully lobbied the federal government to reverse the AR-15s prohibition because of the widespread negative impact it would have on organized Service Rifle competition back in the day.

The RCMP did not enjoy the god-like powers they now flaunt regularly to restrict legal firearms ownership back then. They only gained said powers as a result of the incompetence of Liberal drafters of C-68, who somehow found a way to exponentially compound the idiocy demonstrated by their Progressive Conservative predecessors, while drafting the equally ineffectual Bill C-17.
 
The RCMP weren't responsible for the post-Polytechnique reclassifications. Kim Campbell and the Progressive Conservatives were, as authors of Bill C-17 and related OICs; -followed by Allan Rock and the Chretien Liberals. The latter of which introduced Bill C-68 and yet more OICs prohibiting "scary" black guns.
Click to expand...

It's good to see that someone remembers who it was that actually kicked off this whole shyte storm. Kim got a summer job as Prime Minister and in her attempt (thankfully futile) to retain it she went pandering to the anti-gun lobby. The ensuing Liberal anti-gun agenda was aimed directly at out-anti-ing Kimmy, which they indeed accomplished.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom