The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[IKnowNothing]

I suppose you start with a toboggan and hill and move on from there, toboggans and hills not being banned. Etc.

The whole point is that there's a spectrum for almost any recreation or pastime ranging from "beginner" to "geek", usually not impeded by overbearing governments saying "Well, if you make it this far, we have an exception for you".

Start with a air pistol and go from there, air guns not being banned.
Have ranges rent out guns likes skis, with long term leases for higher end competitors that don't want to share. It's already illegal to shoot outside of licensed ranges.
The spectrum has to change =/= the spectrum can't exist.

 

[Remius]

It’s bad legislation in my view with so many rabbit holes.

 

[IKnowNothing]

It’s bad legislation in my view with so many rabbit holes.

Yup. As I've said, plenty of arguments against. "Can't learn to shoot without owning" isn't one of them, and the raw petulance of it detracts from the credibility of the others.

 

[Remius]

Yup. As I've said, plenty of arguments against. "Can't learn to shoot without owning" isn't one of them, and the raw petulance of it detracts from the credibility of the others.

The questions though are valid because the answers are absent. Instead it’s theory crafting. Without the law flushed out it demands questions. I don’t see how the credibility of that question on sports shooting is petulance. It’s concern.

 

[Brad Sallows]

"Can't learn to shoot without owning" isn't one of them

Sure it is. Contemporary political and social discourse is full of examples of how making something burdensome in law is a back-handed way of suppressing it. For a change, though, it isn't progressives arguing that somehow some law that burdens people is unreasonable/unfair/unjust.

 

[IKnowNothing]

The questions though are valid because the answers are absent. Instead it’s theory crafting. Without the law flushed out it demands questions. I don’t see how the credibility of that question on sports shooting is petulance. It’s concern.

Valid. Though under that line of thought the presentation and phrasing is all wrong. As I'll get into below.

Sure it is. Contemporary political and social discourse is full of examples of how making something burdensome in law is a back-handed way of suppressing it. For a change, though, it isn't progressives arguing that somehow some law that burdens people is unreasonable/unfair/unjust.

No it isn't. Because, even under the status quo, it's unequivocally true that you CAN learn to shoot without purchasing and owning. Provided that ranges can still own, maintain, and provide equipment to participants there is no additional barrier to the sport. As long as legislation doesn't block that the sport is protected, making the sport a redherring for ownership

 

[Remius]

Valid. Though under that line of thought the presentation and phrasing is all wrong. As I'll get into below.

No it isn't. Because, even under the status quo, it's unequivocally true that you CAN learn to shoot without purchasing and owning. Provided that ranges can still own, maintain, and provide equipment to participants there is no additional barrier to the sport. As long as legislation doesn't block that the sport is protected, making the sport a redherring for ownership

Too many “ifs”. There is a segment that would be all too happy to see sports shooting included in an outright ban.

So I can see why it is questioned.

 

[Brad Sallows]

As long as legislation doesn't block that the sport is protected, making the sport a redherring for ownership

It's not a red herring. People without access to exactly the kind of facility you describe would be denied enjoyment of the sport.

 

[QV]

Adding barriers to anything will reduce it's participation and the level of success one could achieve in that field.

 

[Remius]

The fact that you have to go through many hoops to get a pistol in the first place is probably already discouraging people from getting into sports shooting. I am sure this law will add more discouragement to that.

 

[Eaglelord17]

It is kind of ironic one of the arguments for getting rid of the Restricted pistols is how many have been imported in the last two decades, when they created the conditions for it. When you think about it the Liberals banned about 50% of the firearms in Canadian hands in 1994. 'Short barrelled' handguns were extremely popular, particularly when a 4" barrel qualified as short. Most revolvers were 4" as it was a good balance between the larger sizes and the pocket pistols. Many other service pistols (notably the Luger among others) were also placed in the prohibited category, as well as any gun in .32 or .25 (which there are a ton of .32 pistols out there, some quite large). The result being anyone who got into pistol shooting after 1994 couldn't acquire many of the pistols in Canada and as such due to supply and demand resulted in a lot being imported to make up for it.

I am willing to bet if they didn't create the 12.6 class there wouldn't have been nearly as many pistols imported as it would just have been a slow increase in purchases.

 

[IKnowNothing]

It's not a red herring. People without access to exactly the kind of facility you describe would be denied enjoyment of the sport.

People currently enjoying the sport without access to a licensed facility arent law abiding gun owners

 

[Fishbone Jones]

People currently enjoying the sport without access to a licensed facility arent law abiding gun owners

A statement without a home. Thanks Capt Obvious. Why bring it up?

 

[Brad Sallows]

People currently enjoying the sport without access to a licensed facility arent law abiding gun owners

Sure. But the people currently enjoying the sport lawfully aren't limited by facilities that don't care to provide all the equipment.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Yup. As I've said, plenty of arguments against. "Can't learn to shoot without owning" isn't one of them, and the raw petulance of it detracts from the credibility of the others.

May I ask a few questions? There is no requirement to answer, of course.

How long have you had a PAL with Restricted or Prohibited as a condition?
Do you own restricted or prohibited firearms?
Do you belong to a sanctioned range?

 

[Jarnhamar]

Yup. As I've said, plenty of arguments against. "Can't learn to shoot without owning" isn't one of them, and the raw petulance of it detracts from the credibility of the others.

What's the name of that NHL player that never owned skates or a stick and just rented them at the hockey rink?

 

[Remius]

People currently enjoying the sport without access to a licensed facility arent law abiding gun owners

Imagine having to use hockey sticks and skates from a facility instead of your own to get into competitive hockey.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Now do swimsuits and swimming pools...

 

[medicineman]

Now do swimsuits and swimming pools...

We do it with bowling shoes don't we?

 

[IKnowNothing]

Imagine having to use hockey sticks and skates from a facility instead of your own to get into competitive hockey.

A-not the same scope of involvement
B-hygiene
C- you are legally allowed to use hockey equipment away from said facility
D- regular use at different facilities in short timespans (next day if not same day) normal.

As long as ranges are allowed and willing to keep, maintain, and provide equipment on site, the ability to take the equipment from the only space youre allowed to use it to store it at home is not necessary for the viability of the sport.

May I ask a few questions? There is no requirement to answer, of course.

How long have you had a PAL with Restricted or Prohibited as a condition?
Do you own restricted or prohibited firearms?
Do you belong to a sanctioned range?

No no and no. Hence fudd.

I also dont own skis, am not and have not ever been a member of a ski club, and yet I can handle pretty much any black diamond in Ontario(not that that says much)