Smart Gun

[Chuck Finley69]

There are people in Canada who own guns for target shooting, hunting and such. In general, there are controls over guns in Canada, and for handguns like that smartGun, in Canada there is additional controls.

So how does one purchase target pistols (handguns) or modern hunting rifles like AR-10 or AR-15 for example?

 

[spARTacus]

So how does one purchase target pistols (handguns) or modern hunting rifles like AR-10 or AR-15 for example?

I'd have to check the current rules to be precisely accurate, but In general in Canada one used to need to have a Firearms Acquisition Certificate (FAC) to purchase or possess any firearm (for example, for hunting rifles, shotguns, 22 cal pest rifles, etc.). In order to get an FAC, one used to have to take/pass a course covering safety and awareness for firearms, training for use, safe storage and such, plus also a level of background/criminal records check. For a handgun and other firearms (for example, automatic/semi rifles, larger caliber weapons, revolvers, pistols, rifles with certain short barrels), it used to be that those were all Restricted Weapons in Canada, requiring higher levels of permits, checks, licensing, training, certification. Restricted Weapons in Canada used to basically be a pain in the butt. Average people didn't try to own them just for the fun of it. The requirements were such that one basically had to be pretty serious about it for storage, transportation, certified gun ranges use, etc. Generally, restricted weapons weren't things people in Canada would just take out and into the backyard for target practice.You have to also remember that in Canada, there really isn't a need/desire for firearms the same as there is in the US, for personal protection or otherwise just for enjoyment, or for having them just lying around the house or car. A loaded hunting rifle above the seat of a pickup truck in Canada, that could have a use for an on farm on ranch only vehicle on a really big farm/ranch (like thousands and thousands of acres). Such in an on road on highway vehicle, in Canada I am pretty sure that is illegal, as well as not really ever required/useful. In terms of an AR-15, if you mean a civilian equivalent of a Military M16 (or in Canada's case the C7/C8), those things would fall into a Restricted Weapons category. Folks don't need assault weapons in Canada for hunting.

 

[Chuck Finley69]

I'd have to check the current rules to be precisely accurate, but In general in Canada one used to need to have a Firearms Acquisition Certificate (FAC) to purchase or possess any firearm (for example, for hunting rifles, shotguns, 22 cal pest rifles, etc.). In order to get an FAC, one used to have to take/pass a course covering safety and awareness for firearms, training for use, safe storage and such, plus also a level of background/criminal records check. For a handgun and other firearms (for example, automatic/semi rifles, larger caliber weapons, revolvers, pistols, rifles with certain short barrels), it used to be that those were all Restricted Weapons in Canada, requiring higher levels of permits, checks, licensing, training, certification. Restricted Weapons in Canada used to basically be a pain in the butt. Average people didn't try to own them just for the fun of it. The requirements were such that one basically had to be pretty serious about it for storage, transportation, certified gun ranges use, etc. Generally, restricted weapons weren't things people in Canada would just take out and into the backyard for target practice.You have to also remember that in Canada, there really isn't a need/desire for firearms the same as there is in the US, for personal protection or otherwise just for enjoyment, or for having them just lying around the house or car. A loaded hunting rifle above the seat of a pickup truck in Canada, that could have a use for an on farm on ranch only vehicle on a really big farm/ranch (like thousands and thousands of acres). Such in an on road on highway vehicle, in Canada I am pretty sure that is illegal, as well as not really ever required/useful. In terms of an AR-15, if you mean a civilian equivalent of a Military M16 (or in Canada's case the C7/C8), those things would fall into a Restricted Weapons category. Folks don't need assault weapons in Canada for hunting.

What do you consider "assault weapon" ?

 

[SteinwayTransitCorp]

Let me jump in the great law that is quoted took firearms away from a retired police officer, why you may ask? Answer because we believe they look scary and like something the military would use. Meanwhile in Vancouver gun violence continues to go up…….why you may ask? Because honest people obey the law criminals do not. An assault rifle that the law screams about and idiots bang the desk speaking about, does not exist. There are many riffles that are NOT classified as an assault weapon yet are closer to that spec than the guns that talk about. It’s all about the look and screaming about how scary they look. Example: MP40 uses a 15 to 50 shot clip, is an exact replica for the German WWII weapon but is a semiautomatic. That weapon is fine, why you may ask…….because it does not look scary.

 

[spARTacus]

What do you consider "assault weapon" ?

I'd consider an assault weapon to be anything that is designed for (or derived from such designs/products) military and para-military purposes. An assault rifle by definition I think is about a rifle used by infantry for attacking (assaulting) armed enemy positions, and a focus in particular on how designs evolved for more efficient and effective success for such purposes near the end of and then after World War 2, for things like improved approaches for multi round magazines, bullets, rifling, sights, portability, durability during conflict, etc. From a non rifle perspective, perhaps an assault weapon I would consider anything in the automatic realm. For both, basically anything stemming from or related in capability to the likes of an AK47, an M16, an Uzi, all of those I would tend to think of as assault weapons. All those sorts of things serve purposes for military and police use. Not so much for hunting or around the yard pest control. I probably shouldn't have used the term assault weapon and should have instead used the term assault rifle, given your AR-15 reference.

 

[spARTacus]

...took firearms away from a retired police officer..

No idea what example you are referring to, but in Canada there's no need for anyone to have assault rifles/weapons unless the person is actively doing military or police work. If a retired Canadian military/police person had an assault rifle/weapon and it was taken away from them due to Canadian gun control laws, then that's great. Any respectable Canadian military/police individual or retired individual wouldn't have had one (or would have had the appropriate permit for such) since they know better.

 

[spARTacus]

....There are many riffles that are NOT classified as an assault weapon yet are closer to that spec than the guns that talk about. It’s all about the look and screaming about how scary they look...

Agree there's lots of screaming idiots and extremes out there (the general recommendation is most people ignore the propaganda from such). Agree also lots of things aren't perfect.

For example, a long time ago I owned a Hungarian AK47. I needed an FAC but I didn't need Restricted Weapons. Why, because the magazine it was sold with didn't hold more than a certain capacity, the barrel length was just beyond the limit, and from factory it was semi auto only. None of that considered that I could easily buy a bigger magazine, I could remove the fire suppressor to make the barrel shorter than the limit, and if I really wanted to I could modify the mechanism to make it auto.

This was a long time ago (decades). If I had kept the AK all these years to this day and if I did not register it or apply with regards to the newer rules, it and my lack of action would probably have resulted in it now being in the "to be confiscated" category. If I would still be the younger naive person I was back then, I would probably have also now felt offended if it was confiscated.

 

[spARTacus]

.. the great law that is quoted...

I didn't quote any law and I didn't state either that it was great. Stop automatically assuming that so much is on the opposite end of whatever you are being conditioned to support. The world isn't all bad. Not everything is against you. Don't believe that sort of preaching and have to fall into that sort of group.

 

[Chuck Finley69]

I'd consider an assault weapon to be anything that is designed for (or derived from such designs/products) military and para-military purposes. An assault rifle by definition I think is about a rifle used by infantry for attacking (assaulting) armed enemy positions, and a focus in particular on how designs evolved for more efficient and effective success for such purposes near the end of and then after World War 2, for things like improved approaches for multi round magazines, bullets, rifling, sights, portability, durability during conflict, etc. From a non rifle perspective, perhaps an assault weapon I would consider anything in the automatic realm. For both, basically anything stemming from or related in capability to the likes of an AK47, an M16, an Uzi, all of those I would tend to think of as assault weapons. All those sorts of things serve purposes for military and police use. Not so much for hunting or around the yard pest control. I probably shouldn't have used the term assault weapon and should have instead used the term assault rifle, given your AR-15 reference.
====================================

The civilian versions of AR-15 or any other civilian owned hunting rifle are not automatic fire. An Uzi is not legal if fully automatic and same with any Glock with a Glock Switch but that doesn't make the legal firearms assault weapons. The attempt to call any hunting rifle assault weapon because it looks mean and the same as military or law enforcement version of rifle is simply attempt to demonize legal gun ownership.

 

[SteinwayTransitCorp]

I didn't quote any law and I didn't state either that it was great. Stop automatically assuming that so much is on the opposite end of whatever you are being conditioned to support. The world isn't all bad. Not everything is against you. Don't believe that sort of preaching and have to fall into that sort of group.

You’re again blocking……………I said the new law was an issue, it was passed about a year or so ago. As for the world, evil is everywhere if you can’t see it I feel very sorry for you.

 

[SteinwayTransitCorp]

I'd consider an assault weapon to be anything that is designed for (or derived from such designs/products) military and para-military purposes. An assault rifle by definition I think is about a rifle used by infantry for attacking (assaulting) armed enemy positions, and a focus in particular on how designs evolved for more efficient and effective success for such purposes near the end of and then after World War 2, for things like improved approaches for multi round magazines, bullets, rifling, sights, portability, durability during conflict, etc. From a non rifle perspective, perhaps an assault weapon I would consider anything in the automatic realm. For both, basically anything stemming from or related in capability to the likes of an AK47, an M16, an Uzi, all of those I would tend to think of as assault weapons. All those sorts of things serve purposes for military and police use. Not so much for hunting or around the yard pest control. I probably shouldn't have used the term assault weapon and should have instead used the term assault rifle, given your AR-15 reference.
====================================

The civilian versions of AR-15 or any other civilian owned hunting rifle are not automatic fire. An Uzi is not legal if fully automatic and same with any Glock with a Glock Switch but that doesn't make the legal firearms assault weapons. The attempt to call any hunting rifle assault weapon because it looks mean and the same as military or law enforcement version of rifle is simply attempt to demonize legal gun ownership.

Very true, but the idiots who write laws only go by it look dangerous. A so called assault rifle is no more dangerous than dozens of other hunting rifles

 

[spARTacus]

The civilian versions of AR-15 or any other civilian owned hunting rifle are not automatic fire. An Uzi is not legal if fully automatic and same with any Glock with a Glock Switch but that doesn't make the legal firearms assault weapons. The attempt to call any hunting rifle assault weapon because it looks mean and the same as military or law enforcement version of rifle is simply attempt to demonize legal gun ownership.

I didn't call hunting rifles assault rifles. I did say there is no need for assault rifles for hunting purposes. I'm pretty sure AR-15s aren't being purchased for hunting. They might nowadays be marketed and lobbied as "you can buy them for hunting". That's pretty weak. I don't know a single hunter and outdoors person who actually wants an AR-15 for hunting. They've all got their fairly specialized hunting rifles, some different ones also depending on what they are hunting.

 

[spARTacus]

Very true, but the idiots who write laws only go by it look dangerous. A so called assault rifle is no more dangerous than dozens of other hunting rifles

Maybe the US gun control idiots or screamers do that, but even decades ago Canada was basing restrictions on things like magazine capacity, barrel length, capability for rate of fire.

So called "assault rifles that are no more dangerous than hunting rifles", well if those actually exist as you describe then those in my books aren't assault rifles and I don't know why anyone would spend any money buying one, because they aren't hunting rifles either. Basically, they must exist for no other purpose than for their looks, because they look like assault rifles and it gives the owner some sense of something about such, some sort of feeling like being military or a cop. Or, the owners just like to play around with them, basically a toy.

 

[spARTacus]

...I said the new law was an issue, it was passed about a year or so ago...

Canadian gun control laws and rules are pretty good. I don't have any issue with them, or the newer versions of such. Like I said, if they resulted in a retired military or police individual having a weapon confiscated, then great, I don't see an issue. The individual should have known better.

You’re again blocking... As for the world, evil is everywhere if you can’t see it I feel very sorry for you.

Yes there is evil everywhere in the world. My point was that you don't need to automatically assume that everyone in the world not in your certain group is out to get you or that you need to immediately attack them or preach to them your views. You will continue to exist even in the presence of people who are different than you.

 

[SteinwayTransitCorp]

Canadian gun control laws and rules are pretty good. I don't have any issue with them, or the newer versions of such. Like I said, if they resulted in a retired military or police individual having a weapon confiscated, then great, I don't see an issue. The individual should have known better.


Yes there is evil everywhere in the world. My point was that you don't need to automatically assume that everyone in the world not in your certain group is out to get you or that you need to immediately attack them or preach to them your views. You will continue to exist even in the presence of people who are different than you.

You’re the one who assumes, also you are the one with your head in the sand. Just remember the old adage: first they came for the trades people but I did not do anything because I was not a tradesmen. Then they came for the intellectuals and I did nothing, because I was not an intellectual. Then they came for me and there was no one.

 

[Ph1llip]

No idea what example you are referring to, but in Canada there's no need for anyone to have assault rifles/weapons unless the person is actively doing military or police work. If a retired Canadian military/police person had an assault rifle/weapon and it was taken away from them due to Canadian gun control laws, then that's great. Any respectable Canadian military/police individual or retired individual wouldn't have had one (or would have had the appropriate permit for such) since they know better.

Since when do you determine what others can have our not have? That's exactly the sort of thinking that breeds tyranny. Is your last name Trudeau

 

[spARTacus]

You’re the one who assumes, also you are the one with your head in the sand. Just remember the old adage: first they came for the trades people but I did not do anything because I was not a tradesmen. Then they came for the intellectuals and I did nothing, because I was not an intellectual. Then they came for me and there was no one.

If you want to think that I'm being walked over because I don't think like you do for wants/desires to be able to have guns and for standing up for some rights about being able to have assault rifles, that's your choice. Doesn't make any sense to me some of the logic you try to present, but hey that's you, so be it.

 

[SteinwayTransitCorp]

If you want to think that I'm being walked over because I don't think like you do for wants/desires to be able to have guns and for standing up for some rights about being able to have assault rifles, that's your choice. Doesn't make any sense to me some of the logic you try to present, but hey that's you, so be it.

As always weave and dodge……………blather on

 

[spARTacus]

Since when do you determine what others can have our not have? That's exactly the sort of thinking that breeds tyranny. Is your last name Trudeau

I only have an ability to determine how I wish to vote, and to also determine what I think for if myself and others should or should not have as firearms, etc. Like I said earlier, I am quite content with Canadian gun control and laws and what those rules and laws outline for what myself and others can and cannot have for firearms.

 

[spARTacus]

As always weave and dodge……………blather on

Not at all. You wrote a useless analogy again in relation to what was being discussed in the postings, so I responded to it as was deserved.