Fuck Trudeau and Fuck Bill Blaire

maybe I’m a little ignorant here but what’s the point in owning guns if we can’t use them to protect ourselves? What good is a handgun to me as a law abiding citizen if it has to sit in a safe collecting dust?

Handguns are a absolute blast to shoot. YOu can use them on any approved handgun range. Most ranges are also apporved for handguns.

I look at it like handguns are fun to me like skateboards are fun to others. I tried skateboarding when I was young, I saw no thrill or desire to ever do it again. It simply wasn't enjoyable or fun to me in any way. Guns/hand guns are a ton of enjoyment and fun for me, many don't feel the same though.

Skateboarding hurts WAY more ppl a year then guns, but I'd never vote to ban skateboarding even though its not something I enjoy. Other people enjoy it and as long as they are responsibile than they should be allowed the freedom to enjoy it.
 
Handguns are a absolute blast to shoot. YOu can use them on any approved handgun range. Most ranges are also apporved for handguns.

I look at it like handguns are fun to me like skateboards are fun to others. I tried skateboarding when I was young, I saw no thrill or desire to ever do it again. It simply wasn't enjoyable or fun to me in any way. Guns/hand guns are a ton of enjoyment and fun for me, many don't feel the same though.

Skateboarding hurts WAY more ppl a year then guns, but I'd never vote to ban skateboarding even though its not something I enjoy. Other people enjoy it and as long as they are responsibile than they should be allowed the freedom to enjoy it.

I respect your guys recreational interests, but to me Canadian gun laws for hand guns is the biggest joke. A handgun for me is a tool to shoot a fucking junky in the head that enters my property. If I'm not aloud to do that, they are no good to me. Rifles on the other hand are very valuable to me, but this is just me. Besides I'd rather shoot a cracker jack in the head with an SKS over any handgun.
 
I respect your guys recreational interests, but to me Canadian gun laws for hand guns is the biggest joke. A handgun for me is a tool to shoot a fucking junky in the head that enters my property. If I'm not aloud to do that, they are no good to me. Rifles on the other hand are very valuable to me, but this is just me. Besides I'd rather shoot a cracker jack in the head with an SKS over any handgun.

I'm not denying the multiple uses of handguns and I agree ALL guns are also a tool of protection. Don't ever think I'm not a guy that doesn't think you should have the right to protect you, your family and your property with a firearm.

Have you ever shot guns? If so, what guns?
 
I'm not denying the multiple uses of handguns and I agree ALL guns are also a tool of protection. Don't ever think I'm not a guy that doesn't think you should have the right to protect you, your family and your property with a firearm.

Have you ever shot guns? If so, what guns?

Hand guns, rifles shotguns you name it. Shooting at the range is ok, but one other guy said it already, having a rpal you might as well have a target on your back for the rcmp and govt. I guess to me, outside of getting a permit to take a hand gun to the range what is the point of owning one?
 
Techunically a 22 cal pistol going over 500fps IS considered a firearm/hand gun.. So those would also be gone.
Well I have a rifle then. The one I have is meant for competition shooting. It was too much to play around with in a field in town and regretted my buying decision. Way too much power.
I've had it for likely a decade.
 
Hand guns, rifles shotguns you name it. Shooting at the range is ok, but one other guy said it already, having a rpal you might as well have a target on your back for the rcmp and govt. I guess to me, outside of getting a permit to take a hand gun to the range what is the point of owning one?

I have a rpal an never felt like I had a target on my back. I guess I feel like I have a target on my back in terms of the government trying to take it from me, but thats it.

You need to understand a few things..
-its not difficult to get a rpal or a permit to take it to the range. Rpal is a course the same length at the pal course. It's not difficult to pass it.
-once you pass the course, they do a background check on you. You need to submit 3 references as well. They never called my references and I had my rpal in my hands very quickly. All guys I know had the same experinces, no references calls and its a quick easy process.
-There's a few charges that make it so you can't get a rpal such as assult with a weapn I think. But if these charges are in your distant past I think you can still get it.
-I know I had a illegal package seized by customs once and another illegal package opened (and delivered to me eventually). neither stopped my pal or rpal process.
-if you've been divroced or separated recently, they will call your partner to get their thoughts on you owning a restricted gun (they do the same for pal lis as well).
-Pretty sure to have a handgun registered to you, you agree that you can be visited by the RCMP for storage inspections. Likewise, if you own more than 7 (I think) long guns, you can be subjected to the same inspections. Either way, I fall into both categories and never been inspected.
-the permit to take your handgun to the range last a lifetime of ownership for that gun. You don't need to renew it.
-you must renew your rpal as often as your pal.. no difference there.

-I've bought handguns from stores and used from joe blow down the street. Both at easy processes.

STORE: give your pal info, pay.. A week later your purchase will be approved and firearm sent to you via Canada post. A few days later your registration paper work and the permit to take it to the range will show up in the mail... No other paper work will ever be needed for this gun.

USED: Give Joe blow your PAL into.. He calls the CFO and gives them his info and your info. Once the transaction is approved, the seller ships your gun to you. A few days later the paper work (registration and permit to take to the range) will show up in your mail box. no other paper work needed

It's less paper work for a handgun than it is for me to buy a used ATV and get it registered. And that fucking paper work needs to be done once a year and costs me money each time..

I laugh when guys complain about the red tape to owning a handgun and how they don't want to be inspected etc.. It's just not the way they think it is. Talk to someone who actually owns handguns and they will tell you the truth about the experience. It's easy, I never been inspected, they never give me a hard time over it etc...

I've even been shooting my handguns at the range when RCMP showed up to do their practise stuff. They never asked for my rpal, never looked at how my handguns were stored, never watched to see if I trigger locked them etc.. They actually took turns with me shooting at their targets and they complimented me that I was more accurate then they were. They were in full uniform.

IF you only want to own a handgun to defend your home, then yes your right.. It makes no sense for you to own one. If you only value you them as a tool to defend your home, then your right, they aren't for you due to the laws.

The more people that fold to their policies of owning handguns the happier they are. The more people who beleive its a giant invasive process to getting a handgun, the hapier they are as well.


By the way, as someone whose get a lot of experience in all kinds of guns, if I was going to choose one to use for home defense it would be a short barrelled pump shot gun with high visibility sights.

Truth is, once I got into handguns one of my first throughts was "I don't think I'll ever be afraid of someone shooting at me with a hand gun from more than 50 yards".... They are extremely hard to shot accurate under ideal conditions. For me to think in a life or death situation I would be profificent enough to hit my targets in the dark, with my heart pounding in an unknown situation just isn't logical. Give me a 12 short barrell 12 guage with 3 inch buck shot.
 
Last edited:
I don't have my rpal, but my buddy does. Pistol shooting is like any other skill you practice and develop. It takes great mastery of yourself (mind & body), and the tool, to become a good marksman. It is extremely rewarding to see your groupings improve as you put the time in.
 
Don't forget to stock up on ammo.

For every firearm you own a couple thousand rounds is a must!
 
I don’t have a licence, am going to get one this winter, a customer teaches the course in town.
I have over the years went to the range numerous times with friends, my brother in law.
Shooting the handguns were the best. I even tried to get my wife into it so I could justify buying a few and doing target practice. But even with ear protection the noise was way too much for her, plus a place we went to the guy helping us was a complete fucking tool and wrecked it completely for her.
I go with my brother in law all the time.

My favourite was the Colt 1911.
I also shoot a 357 magnum a fair bit, with magnum load (I pay him for the ammo) but I find it has too much power and tears up the crease in my thumb.

So I can see why people love handguns. Shooting a rife becomes boring after a while. It’s like a car, you want one that’s completely predictable, or something a bit wild and overpowered?
 
Caillin Langmann:
Time to reiterate and please share: Here is a partial list of quotes from studies that demonstrate gun buy backs, bans, legislation etc. of semi automatic rifles (so called assault weapons) has no effect. The Billion Dollar Buy Back:

“The NFA (Austrailian National Firearms Act - gun buyback of firearms from legal owners including semiauto firearms) had no statistically observable additional impact on suicide or assault mortality attributable to firearms in Australia.” (1)

“It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level.” (USA) (2)

“but this was not statistically significant for firearm homicide (ratio of trends, 0.975; 95%CI, 0.949-1.001).” (Australia) (3)

“1994 Federal assault weapons ban, United States. This law banned the sales and ownership of semiautomatic firearms and large-capacity ammunition magazines. Koper and Roth (76) using UCR data (1980–1995) found no association between the law and homicide rates in 15 states after adjusting
for the presence of other firearm laws and crime laws in NewYork and California. A recent study by Gius (48) showed that the federal assault weapons ban was associated with higher rates of firearm homicides.” […] “The 1988 Victoria state law, Australia. Ozanne-Smith et al. (78) examined the Victoria law that tightened restrictions on semiautomatic long-arms and pump action guns, by comparing pre- versus posttrends of annual death rates in Victoria compared with other states in Australia. The law was associated with a 17.3% decrease in the rate of firearm deaths and lower rates of firearm suicides, but not with firearm homicides (78).” (4)

“Ban assault weapons Absolute Rate Difference: 0.97 0.84 (0.66-1.07), Table 4. No benefit.” (USA) (5)

“In all of these 23 incidents, the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied large capacity magazines, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2- to 4-seconds delay for each magazine change. Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain such slow rates of fire that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.” (6)

“The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.” (Australia) (7)

“(Federal Assault Weapons Ban) We found no evidence of reductions in multiple-victim gun homicides or multiple-gunshot wound victimizations.” (USA) (8)

“This study failed to demonstrate a beneficial association between legislation and firearm homicide rates between 1974 and 2008.” (Canada) (9)

“Les homicides commis a` l’aide d’AAF a` autorisation restreinte ou prohibe´e n’ont pas re´agi suite a` l’introduction des lois.” (Homicides with restricted or prohibited authorization have not responded to the introduction of the laws.) (Canada) (10)

“The results are consistent with the findings of most previous studies that the 1977 Canadian firearms legislation did not have a significant effect on homicide rates.” (Canada) (11)

“There was little evidence to suggest that increased firearms legislation in Canada had a significant impact on preexisting trends in lethal firearm violence against women. These results do not support the view that increasing firearms legislation is associated with a reduced incidence of firearm-related female domestic homicide victimization.” (12)

Bibliography
1. Gilmour S, Wattanakamolkul K, Sugai M. The Effect of the Australian National Firearms. American Journal of Public Health. 2018;108(11):1511-1516.
2. Guis M. An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assaultweapons bans on state-level murder rates. Applied Economics Letters. 2014;21(4):265-267.
3. Chapman S, Alpers P, Jones M. Association Between Gun LawReforms and Intentional Firearm Deaths in Australia, 1979-2013. Journal of the American Medical Association. 2016;316(3):291-299.
4. Santaella-Tenorio J, Cerda M, Villaveces A, Galea S. What Do We Know About the Association Between Firearm Legislation and. Epidemiologic Reviews. 2016;38:140-157.
5. Fleegler E, Lee L, Monuteaux M, Hemenway D, Mannix R. Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Fatalities in the United States. Journal of American Medical Association Internal Medicine. 2013;173(9):732-740.
6. Kleck G. Large Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages. Justice Research and Policy. 2016;17(1):28-47.
7. Lee WS, Suardi S. The Australian Firearms Buyback. Melbourne: The University of Melbourne; 2008.
8. Koper C, Roth J. The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Ban on Gun Violence Outcomes: An Assessment of Multiple Outcome Measures and Some Lessons for Policy Evaluation. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 2001;17(1):33-74.
9. Langmann C. Canadian firearms legislation and effects on homicide 1974 to 2008. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2012;27(12):2303-2321.
10. Blais E, Gagne MP. L’effet des lois en matie`re de controˆ le des armes a` feu sur les homicides au Canada, 1974–2004. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice. 2011;53(1):27-61.
11. Mauser G, Holmes R. An Evaluation of the 1977 Canadian Firearms Legislation. Evaluation Review. 1992;16(6):603-617.
12. McPhedran S, Mauser G. Lethal Firearm-Related Violence Against Canadian Women: Did Tightening Gun Laws Have an Impact on Women’s Health and Safety? Violence and Victims. 2013;28(5):875-883. #nationalfirearmsassociation #nfa #nocompromise #nfatalk #gunlobby #noban #notprohibited #findsomethingelse #blackgunsmatter #ar15 #sks #rugermini14 #tavor #stag10 #scorpion #type81 #type97 #556 #308 #22lr #ar10 #canadiansportshooter #canadianhunter #freedom #rpal #complyornot #nocommonsense #noassaultweaponsban #selfdefence #propertyrights
 
I was at a place in Las Vegas called The Gun Store and tried a few awesome guns. The best being a Saw M240 belt fed machine gun. That thing was pretty fucking cool. If i could own one of those here in Canada i would 100% have one. No purpose other than pure entertainment.
 
I was at a place in Las Vegas called The Gun Store and tried a few awesome guns. The best being a Saw M240 belt fed machine gun. That thing was pretty fucking cool. If i could own one of those here in Canada i would 100% have one. No purpose other than pure entertainment.

I shot an M240 at a range in Phoenix AZ, it was awesome. I also tried a Thompson SMG ("Tommy gun"); throwing .44 downrange at a high rate of fire really gets the blood pumping. 😎
 
I was at a place in Las Vegas called The Gun Store and tried a few awesome guns. The best being a Saw M240 belt fed machine gun. That thing was pretty fucking cool. If i could own one of those here in Canada i would 100% have one. No purpose other than pure entertainment.

And possibly defending yourself from government tyranny..
 
Top