I have never considered taking up target practice or hunting, not that I have anything against it, I just never really thought about it.
And, until last week, I don't think I ever would have.
But when some elitist state-control advocates from Toronto and Montreal tell me what I shouldn't have, well, I'm the kind of guy that thinks about having it. Even if I didn't want it in the first place.
Call me a rebel.
So, I need a little advice today as I prepare for obtaining my first ever FAC.
When I do, what would you recommend in terms of a long-gun? I'm thinking of hunting rabbits.
The IWI TAR-21?
Or...
The Colt AR-15?
I just can't decide..
And of course I'm going to need a handgun as well, I don't want anything too powerful, as I'm just starting out, and I need something that's relatively stable and easy to use.
Again, what would you recommend, between the:
Barretta 92FS
And the Glock 35?
Thank-you Michael Ignatieff and Jack Layton, for making me think about the need to have something you don't want me to have.
16 comments:
Great post.
The manning poll was slammed by many in the left for being biased for asking the wrong questions.
This is is good time to see globally citizens pushing back against the "know it all" experts.
This is about trust and the need for wasteful regulations that don't work.
The Liberal party and old CCF (NDP) used to defend liberty against the interests of big government, big business (controlled by the propertied classes) now they have become co-opted in protecting and regulating those entitlements.
Good luck on your new hobby! Let us know if you enjoy the experience.
This reminds me of the 1950's Looney Toons Rabbit Fire hunting trilogy.
I'd go for the AR, and the barretta.
However with both being restricted, your only hope would be to see a rabbit at the range.
Hey there,
If you're looking to pick up a handgun, I suggest the Smith and Wesson M&P 9mm. It's considerably cheaper than a Glock, Sig, etc, and I'm very pleased with mine. Nothing beats a 9mm for a lot of fun at the range. A Ruger .22 is also a hell of a lot of fun (and cheap on ammo) --but a pain to take apart and clean. Avoid odd calibres: the ammo gets expensive.
For rifles, you can't beat a Remington 700 --there are a lot of variants within that range. .223 is a good calibre if you're looking to shoot mostly at paper --.270 if you ever want to go hunting.
Cheers,
James
Go with the Glock and the AR-15; lots of tech support as well as parts for both.
Throw in an inexpensive .22 rifle as well.
Really??? You're seriously thinking of getting a gun because of all of this? Because "they" told you not to? That's not a rebellious thing to do, it's a childish thing to do. Lots of the deaths by firearms in Canada are accidental. You really want to bring a gun in to your home?
And you do know that it's not only Toronto and Montreal politicians who support the gun registry, but also the RCMP?
Long guns are the guns most used when women and children are killed in domestic violence. That's why they need to be included in the gun registry. And it's something rural dwellers should be concerned about; there are more homicides per capita in small towns than there are in urban centres.
You know gun control works just by comparing Canada and the US. There are *roughly* 10 times more homicides with firearms per capita in the States than in Canada.
Why is owning a gun so important to you? There are obviously good reasons for there to be a gun registry. I honestly don't get the vehement hostility towards the gun registry.
Wow, Christine,
I hope you remove all sharp pointy objects from your household, don't forget to take away the keys for any motor vehicle from your husband too!
Next, I read somewhere young males are more likely to be involved in serious motor vehicle accidents too. Let's ban young males from driving?
Next no alcohol or salt either males can't be trusted right to do the right thing?
Anything else Christine?
Christina,
1.So it is childish to want to own a weapon? I rather think it's childish to expect other people to protect you, kill animals for you and feed you.
2. "Number of police associations that have expressed support for the long-gun registry: 154.
Number of police associations that have expressed their opposition to the long-gun registry: 6. -http://thechronicleherald.ca/TheNovaScotian/1203876.html"
3. People who are beating their wives shouldn't have guns. A registry will do exactly zero about this.
4. Firsly, this difference existed even before the firearm registry, so it had nothing to do with it. Second, The firearm deaths per capita are not calculated by gun-per-capita. The number of guns is not the determinant of the number of murders. Your argument is vapid lipping of sophistry you were ignorant enough to be fooled by. Ethnic street gangs, organized crime and thug culture is the problem. Ban rappers, not guns.
Finally, you say "There are obviously good reasons for there to be a gun registry.". Well, if this is so, you obviously don't know them.
1. Nooo... It's childish for Harvie to want a gun specifically because he was told he shouldn't have one. I think it was pretty clear I was referring to Harvie's *reasons* for wanting a gun.
2. ??? I thought you were against the gun registry. The statistics and article you posted seem to support it. Which is cool with me.
3. So... what do you propose? A mandatory questionnaire at the gun store asking, "Do you beat your spouse?" Anything that makes it easier to solve gun crimes and to prosecute perpetrators would help.
4. Before the gun registry there was still gun control. That's why I say comparing the stats of Canada and the States proves that *gun control* works. My point is, if regulations on gun ownership decrease gun violence, and the registry is another form of gun control, then it will further reduce gun violence.
As I said, there are more homicides in small towns than in big cities. Most homicides are committed by people the victims personally know. Most firearm homicides of women and children are committed with long guns. Long guns are a problem as much as hand guns, if not more so.
Your comment about ethnic gangs and rap music is blatantly racist.
I'll go in to why your understanding of statistics doesn't make sense later. I have to go now.
@ Christina: Wow, Christina is really ignorant. Keep copying text off of the Brady Campaign's website, girl.
Those studies quoted have long been debunked. Go to the National Academy of Sciences Critical Review on Gun Control where a panel of real scientists conclude that there is no evidence it works.
Some points: Norway, Switzerland both have higher gun possession per capita than the US. Lower gun crime rates. Comparing homicide rates can actually be suprisingly difficult since in the US if two people are involved in the death of one person that is often counted as two homicides as both are charged. In fact if two criminals are together in the commission of a crime and one is killed by the police the other criminal can actually be charged with manslaughter of his colleague...
Most victims of gun crime in the United States are by a person they knew. The FBI database defines a personal relationship based upon simple knowledge of the victim, in other words when a gang banger kills another gang banger it is counted as a intimately related crime if the two knew each other's name... clearly this doesn't reflect domestic homicide as these stats try to allude.
I suggest you consider the work of JR Lott who has published in peer reviewed economics and legal journals his seminal papers demonstrating that more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens for self defence reduces violent crime due to criminals switching to other types of crime to avoid being hurt by a citizen defending herself.
The carry concealed weapon program in the united states has been extremely successful. Millions of Americans carry a concealed pistol and have saved numerous lives by acting in self defence or the defence of others during a crime. Including the defence of women preventing their murder by vicious ex's. These permit holders so rarely violate their permits that it is considered an overwhelming success. People can be trusted, amazing...
I know. I am initimately familiar with the use of a firearm for self defence where lives were saved that would not have been if the firearm wasn't available to the victims...
As to firearms killing spouses it so rarely happens in Canada that money that could have done more good work helping women such as more shelters is being wasted on a gun registry that does nothing according to Canada's auditor general to help people. In fact that wasted money is hurting women as we speak.
@ RG Harvie: I personally would buy a shotgun 12 gauge pump action for home defence. As well you can learn how to hunt all kinds of birds or even larger game like deer which is an enjoyable past-time and all with one firearm - very multipurpose and what I use. The Israeli TAR is a nice firearm, but if you really like the idea of learning to use a rifle for self defence then the AR is very common and lots of parts are available. The Tavor with the longer barrel is actually non-restricted I believe and could be used for hunting. However hunting rabbits would be best to use a .22 rifle, really.
As to handguns my suggestion is to personally go to a gun shop and try handling each handgun under the guide of an experienced shooter. The type of handgun that best fits your hands is the gun you want, not some name brand icon. Glocks and Smith and Wessons have interchangeable grips and are cheap but extremely reliable and safe firearms. Sig also makes firearms with an easy grip to use. Glock is very easy to clean for the first time owner, and if you buy a Gen4 you likely will manage to interchange a grip that works. Finally the handgun Glock you have posted is for competition and has a longer barrel and may not be what you want. As well you may wish to consider 9mm which is fine for self defence but also is cheap on ammunition for target and competition shooting.
If you buy a handgun take a defensive shooting course to learn how to use it properly. Many courses are offered.
Anyway just my opinion.
I understand you perfectly. I'm resisting the impulse to get a gun just because of these nanny statists.
I didn't need one before so why should I need one now?
The thing you big government morons (christina) should remember is that I don't own a gun because I don't need one. The minute I need a gun, the police will have failed to keep me safe. Why should bother with an FAC or a registry at all if the governemnt won't fulfill its services to me? Why should pay and respect these services. Better to go black market and regard the police as just another gang to look out for.
Do you get it Christina? Hassle people for no reason and you make them criminals.
@ Alex,
With all respect, you should obtain a firearm. (Like you a while ago I thought I have no need. Even though I grew up with firearms.)
Sport target shooting is actually fun, I enjoy it more than golf.
Learning how to use a firearm for self defence particularly the home as a last resort, or while hiking in certain parts of Canada is a valuable skill. Yes the chances of requiring it are low, but strangely it does happen. To that I can testify intimitely.
Finally IMHO we need a larger firearms community to protect the rights of those libertarian folks, sports shooters and hunters who keep getting beat up by the government for owning firearms. It is hard for them to come for us all, the more of us there are.
Christina said...
2. ??? I thought you were against the gun registry. The statistics and article you posted seem to support it. Which is cool with me.
Is it also 'cool' that the police associations (who never, ever ask their membership for their opinions...and in fact have been known to *forbid* individual officers from making their opinions public) are still being asked for their support when they have a vested interest in maintaining the registry because it EMPLOYS MORE POLICE? Where is our news media on this obvious conflict of interest?
How about the much-vaunted 'support' from the Chiefs of Police? Why doesn't any reporter ever mention that the chiefs are all *political appointees*, who do and say exactly what they are told to do and say?
(want Bill Blair's opinion on something? Ask David Miller...)
And how about that 115,000 dollar 'donation' to the CAPC by the GGI Group (creators of the registry database itself)? Why did their ethicist resign in disgust over such an obvious conflict of interest (oh, hell...let's just call it what it was: a *bribe*) for their public support? Where is the national news media on THAT, I wonder?
4. Before the gun registry there was still gun control. That's why I say comparing the stats of Canada and the States proves that *gun control* works.
Excellent. Now let's just see you give ONE EXAMPLE where gun control was introduced and created a drop in murder or violent crime rates, okay? A drop that can be positively identified as due to gun control measures not previously existing. Anywhere IN THE WORLD. Just one. Go ahead and give it a try.
(I'll even refrain from posting the statistics on how 'concealed carry' laws in many US states have achieved exactly that, just to be kind. Won't even mention other countries with more guns and less gun crime, either...)
My point is, if regulations on gun ownership decrease gun violence,
THEY DON'T. Never have, never will. The US has some 30,000 different gun control laws, and no one of them has ever been proven to actually work. In fact, the strictest 'gun control' laws are found in the cities with the highest (not lowest) murder rates.
and the registry is another form of gun control, then it will further reduce gun violence.
See above. More gun control will work just as well as stricter drug laws have made *that* problem go away. Sorry, Christina...you just don't have a valid argument here.
What really offends me is hearing Liberal and NDP politicians, politically correct prigs and others who know nothing of the realities of the gun culture in Canada, that is, hunting, sport shooting and collecting, blather on about the need to create a “culture of safety,” and "do you really want to bring a gun into your home."
There are few hobbies safer than hunting and sport shooting and safety is something that has been in practice for more than a century. Check the records of trap and skeet clubs, pistol shooting clubs and rifle ranges to see for yourself how few accidents there have been. Hunting accidents are the exception rather than the rule too. Succeeding generations of hunters and sport shooters learn their hunting and shooting skills and the Ten Commandments of Safety from those who came before them. I received my first lessons in the safe handling of guns from my father when I was eight years old. I took hunter safety training at fifteen from seasoned hunters employed by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. I was granted my first hunting license at fifteen after passing a written and practical test administered by a Conservation Officer. I remember to this day him telling me and the three other young people he tested that morning that “he was satisfied we could be trusted to use our guns safely.” It has been many years since then and my accident-free record stands.
I heartily welcome you to the ranks of Canada's gun owners.
What jumped out at me was the comment about long guns being used in domestic violence against women and children --- in the end, more children die from 'in home accidents' than anything else, even illnesses. So basically that is like saying we should no longer have stairs, kitchen knives, hard surfaces or corners, televisions, any types of cables, cords, ropes, scarves, strings on clothing, etc etc etc because many children have died from accidents with each of those items.
I have never owned a gun and never even handled one actually. Even though I had guns in my basement, in a glass and wood cabinet, I did not touch them. My dad was a hunter and worked for Alberta Parks as a forestry ranger and then a park ranger. I grew up in a rural area and not one person died from gun violence in all my years there. But some died or were horribly maimed in car accidents, farm equipment disasters, falls, drownings, etc. The highest death rate was from vehicle accidents.
The small city I am from has had some gun violence sporadically over the years - but some of those were actually committed by people who came into town from larger cities so I am wondering - would that be considered an urban or a rural crime? Hmmm.... interesting.
In homicide cases, the first person looked at is the one closest to the victim usually, so let's say a woman and child were found shot to death with a rifle. The husband/father would be the first person the authorities turn to in their investigation. Whether he has a registered weapon or not, he will be the first one in their scope. So what difference would it make if he was registered? Anyone who holds a rifle to a child and fires is not right in the head. They may have been 'okay' when they first registered their rifle, but does that mean in a fit of anger they won't use it for fear of getting caught? I don't get it. That's the last thing on their mind in the heat of rage.
The woman's shelter used to be next door to my friend's house and we saw bruised and beaten women entering ALL the time. It was heart breaking and disturbing - they were alive but broken and at their wit's end from violence - so should we ban marriages? Ban fists? How do we stop this? How many of those families had registered weapons in the home that were NOT used in domestic violence? How many had unregistered weapons? How does it change ANYTHING.
Christina, this is something that I figured out on my own years ago and was confirmed by my friend's police officer husband --- if you ask an officer how the gun registry plays into his/her job, they will say that when going on a call they can type up the address and find out if there is a registered weapon in the home.
Okay, that sounds good, right? But THEN you HAVE to ask them how they approach a call when NO weapon comes up - they will always say they have to enter with the SAME extreme caution and awareness. And it's not just for guns - it could be a bat, a can of mace, a fist, a club, anything coming at them. So knowing prior about a weapon DOES NOT CHANGE how they attend a call. Not one single solitary bit. Think about that for a moment and then please explain how the registry HELPS the police, RCMP, etc.
Kez Creates said...
Okay, that sounds good, right? But THEN you HAVE to ask them how they approach a call when NO weapon comes up - they will always say they have to enter with the SAME extreme caution and awareness. And it's not just for guns - it could be a bat, a can of mace, a fist, a club, anything coming at them. So knowing prior about a weapon DOES NOT CHANGE how they attend a call. Not one single solitary bit.
An excellent point...and one that they never have an answer for. What should the police be doing, then...leaving their guns in the car?
It just irritates me when I hear someone on the news say that the registry helps officers on calls - why would it help them to know there is a legal registered gun in the home, when there could be an illegal unregistered gun in the home instead? I know several people who have not registered their rifles let alone that we know there are people who have guns that are totally illegal here, not even with a permit. So what exactly does the registry DO to help? Maybe occasionally it helps solve a crime but they still need to prove who fired the gun even if it is registered to a certain person. So..... where does it help? Possibly many people don't bother buying a rifle because they don't want to go through the paperwork, and even less with a handgun, but that would be HONEST law-abiding people who are shying away from buying a gun. The dishonest law-breakers will try to get a gun no matter what the rules and regulations are. So I cannot see what 'good' it REALLY does at all. Only hypotheses.
Post a Comment