scootb

There are some loopholes that allow the use of 10 shot mags.
Automatic weapons are banned in Canada,instead we have multi shot semi-automatic,bolt action,lever action,and pump action rifles.
A semi-auto with a 1 shot mag would be pretty much pointless.

BristolUK

Not to mention grenades.

I have no idea what those things are. Gun language is a mystery to me.

But why does a civilian need several guns of different types? Why the ability to fire off a bullet every second?

Why the grenades and other explosives that these lunatics also have when they create mayhem?

Shard

A mixture of paranoia and ego.

Oink

They don't require it but surely in a free society one can choose to have such gun.

Because it is an unnecessary restriction.

BristolUK

age or a piano

BenBuzz

Because there are different disciplines of shooting. I enjoy clay (trap) shooting, which requires a shotgun, as well as target shooting and hunting, which requires a rifle.

I do not agree that civilians have the need for fully automatic weapons. I do agree that civilians should have the right to defend themselves using their licensed weapons if the need arises.

Shard

Everyone agrees to that.

The issue on gun control is how to reduce crime and accidental deaths. Clay pigeon shooting, target practice, and even hunting is a non-issue.

Almost Canadian

Is this an argument that there should be no restrictions on anyone? If it is, I completely disagree with you.

If one wishes to argue that a semi-automatic/automatic weapon is required for either personal safety or hunting, why is a magazine of more than 5 necessary? If one is a poor enough shot that 5 won't kill one's assailant, one shouldn't be permitted to have one; ditto for wishing to kill animals.

In light of the above, I fail to see how one can reasonably argue that it is an unnecessary restriction. Please explain why it is.

They are only useful in the military to cut down on the necessity to reload.

dbd33

Isn't that the essential difference between the US and Canada? In either country anyone who wants to have a firearm can do so, in the US it can be for self defense whereas, in Canada, you have to say it's for target practise or hunting or some such; it's not lawful to acquire a gun to shoot burglars.

I don't think these are non-issues. The purpose of the gun is to kill animals or people, if you don't want animals or people to be killed then don't allow the guns.

Shard

I didn't know that (burglars). I think if one has a gun and is under threat, it should be allowed.

The original purpose of a gun may have been to kill, but gun owners have a valid argument in saying they want to use their guns to shoot inanimate objects (for sport). Nevertheless, given the potential for misuse (amply demonstrated in the US and Mexico) I would have no trouble in restricting gun use for the greater good of society. Britain has it right on this issue.

Oink

I'm a reasonable and responsible citizen with no criminal record and as an enthusiast/collector and I should be able to own any gun with whatever size magazine I choose. I have no problem with there being restrictions on how I use a gun and even how it is transported but I think it is an infringement of my freedom to regulate what I use.

And a five round clip? Would you keep that gun in your purse?

dbd33

Guns kept at ranges might reasonably be claimed to be intended for use against inanimate objects, once the weapon is taken away the claim is implausible.

The supposition that guns are used differently in the US and Mexico then they are in Canada is one I find mystifying. People carry guns, they shoot each other or they shoot animals, that's what the guns are for. We may as well say that tractors or garden spades are used differently in different jurisdictions.

The case for having a device intended to kill should hinge on the possibilty of a deadly threat to one's person, if the device is claimed to be needed at home then the threat should exist at home; that's credible if one lives in the tundra amid the polar bears, or in Rexdale, amid the immigrant population. It's not credible to claim the need for a gun in most of Canada; people want them because they like to kill things, whether they're killing people or animals it is, at least, distasteful.

Oink

If someone gave me a rifle, even a rapid fire one with a large capacity magazine, I believe I should be able bring it into Canada without them getting all menstrual about it, and I should be able to take it to a range or out in a quarry or some place and blast away for fun. As long as its properly stored at home and transported unloaded and not within immediate reach, I don't see a problem.

Shard

They are certainly misused in Canada too. I suppose I was referring to the scale of misuse. In any case, I think we are broadly in agreement, even on Rexdale

dbd33

I do do all of that. If one fails to blast away at London Pride cans, one lessens one's chances of being able to bring down the rampant bear or passing fast food seeker.