Comments on: What’s so special about the AR-15? Canada's national weekly current affairs magazine Tue, 06 Oct 2015 07:45:26 +0000 hourly 1 By: Greg Popik Tue, 01 Sep 2015 20:50:35 +0000 The AR15 is a fantastic modern sporting rifle Design that would be ideally suited for hunting. It is a reliable, lightweight and inherently accurate.

If you haven’t shot one and would like to make up your own mind about it I would recommend reaching out to your local gun club. There are an estimated 1.8 million licensed gun owners in Canada, and thanks to the efforts of groups like the DCRA you can easily become involved in civilian marksmanship programs where restricted AR15s are owned and enjoyed in very significant numbers.

By: Kevin Metz Fri, 03 Jan 2014 07:22:00 +0000 It is discouraging how people judge the validity of individuals owning firearms. It is a sport, recreation, and hobby enjoyed by many. How can being in the great outdoors with friends and family enjoying a wholesome activity be vilified so easily?
People who are not involved in the sporting aspect of firearms would be well served to honestly educate themselves about firearms, prove themselves competent by acquiring a PAL(possession and acquisition license), and at that point moving on to express an educated opinion. And go out and do some shooting! Hitting bulls-eyes with speed and precision is incredibly fun and rewarding.
It is impossible to evaluate and judge what others desire, need, or feel passionate about without restricting the personal liberties of others. This is not what Canada is about.
Here is a statement that may serve to illustrate the mentality that restricts many Canadian gun owners in pursuing their passion. I hope you can see the parallels and try to gain some understanding.
“Sports cars should be banned. We don’t need them. The maximum speed limit anywhere in Canada is 110 Km/Hr. Why do you need something that will go 300? People are killed by speed every day.” What if minivans were non restricted, 4 door sport sedans were restricted, and good looking 400+ HP two doors were prohibited? (It’s exactly the same thing!).
Pro-gun and anti-gun are going to have to work together to keep each other safe (let’s be honest – there are people who should never, ever be allowed to have a gun). At the same time we have to respect the rights and liberties of one another.
What are we going to do?

By: Mark Sat, 21 Dec 2013 19:37:00 +0000 Oh how wrong you are. In the Czech Republic it is a common citizen’s right to
conceal carry. Guess what? You need to get trained, certified, register
all your arms, be a good shot (to prevent accidental shootings in case
you need to defend yourself), get a note from your doctor and have a
clean criminal record.

Did you know that in 2009 the Czech Republic had a murder rate of 1.7
per 100,000 and in the same year Canada had a murder rate of 1.8 per

The reason the US has such high shooting rates/murder rates is because
they don’t require any training, licences, etc. to get a firearm. The
Czech Republic proves that you don’t have to have draconian gun laws
banning concealed carry like Canada does; you just have to prevent
crazies and criminals from getting them easily, that’s all you ever need
to do.

There are over 2 million gun owners in Canada, closer to 3 million. Yet
you don’t hear of them going on shooting sprees? It’s not the guns; it’s
how easy it is to get them that’s the problem.

Why do people like you oppress people from being more
individual/libertarian? What you’re doing is wrong and you are allowing
so many people to be victims of preventable crimes. You don’t even allow
people to be licenced for pepper spray or Tasers. There are far more rapes in Canada than the Czech Republic, look it up.

I know you want to use the argument that people will go shooting each
other over parking spaces, yet, that does not happen in the Czech
Republic, that argument is a myth. There are proper training procedures
to follow when conceal carrying and misuse will lead to serious jail

By: Brendan G Mon, 25 Nov 2013 06:19:00 +0000 No ordinary civilian can just go out and legally purchase a functioning “grenade launcher”. Either the launcher will be “deactivated”, a replica, or adapted to fire flares. In no way is it a common, or even legal attachment.

Fact of the matter is that, supposing you illegally acquired a grenade launcher, you could attach it onto any firearm. You don’t need an “AR-15″ to have a grenade launcher work.

The amount of misleading information you’re providing is almost offensive. If you wish to take a stab at gun owners, please do so in a respectful manner.

By: j1mmyd Tue, 30 Jul 2013 10:57:00 +0000 Lets see: I have a strong non-factual bias against {topic X}, so I think I’ll write an article about it. I’ll limit my research to that of the anecdotal variety and make sure I reframe any results to match my biases. I am a Macleans “reporter”.

The issues of firearms ownership in the US and are complex. There are irrational “whackjobs” on both sides.

We, in the US, maintain firearms as per our Constitution, as a last resort against a tyrannical government. This concept is ingrained in us and seems very alien to Canadians. We chose to throw off an oppressor and Canadians waited them out. We’re still not that patient, but we don’t disparage you for being so tolerant of their lingering or for your love of the Crown. OK, maybe for the love of the Crown…

Our government has steamrolled over the 10th Amendment (limits on Federal power). They have long disregarded the 4th and 6th. The 2nd, relating to firearms is the only credible firewall for further erosion of freedoms.

There is no Constitutional test for “sporting purpose” with regard to our firearms and we certainly don’t concern ourselves with how you view the aesthetics or function of our firearms.

Canada is a wonderful country, but neither your thinking nor your solutions fit or scale to our problems.

Now, I’m off to write an article about the sad state of Canadian journalism. I’ll interview a blogger and the kid that delivers my in-law’s newspaper in Saint John.

By: Jake Fri, 26 Apr 2013 02:36:00 +0000 Except banning AR-style weapons would not have prevented any shooting.

My sister was in a really bad car accident not too long ago. She was driving an SUV. Would banning SUV’s prevent these kinds of things?

By: Dontgiveahoot Mon, 04 Mar 2013 13:10:00 +0000 Could you find the actual studies instead of bits and pieces picked from them for specific news articles? I might be willing to concede the ‘means restriction’ point in specific instances, but the articles you posted links to were maddeningly vague and included no links to the actual studies, so it’s impossible to judge whether the stats were taken out of context or how the studies were conducted.

Additionally, you’re using a specific, very suicide-prone (29.36 per 100,000) group (US Army soldiers in 2011) to justify restrictions to a much larger civilian base (12 per 100k in 2009). Would you care to compare that to another nation’s total population base?

It’s a ramshackle table because of the different reporting years and standards of the various countries, but it does show that countries with varying levels of gun control appear all over the list. South Korea, Japan and China appear near the top with severely restricted access to firearms by the civilian population (and yet somehow people find a way) while Greenland, with moderately liberal gun laws, appears right at the top. People in other countries who do not have access to firearms still manage to commit suicide at much higher rates than in the US or Canada. My point has never been ‘guns prevent suicide’ but rather ‘guns aren’t the problem’.

By: Max Paquet Mon, 04 Mar 2013 10:14:00 +0000 Actually click on my links. Studies have found that disallowing the practice of letting soldiers take their weapons home reduces soldier suicide by a significant margin. Gee, it’s like trying to apply a rational economic mindset to an extremely emotionally charged and irrational one is nonsensical or something.

“I suppose the real question here, before either of us use any more of our time this way, is: can you be convinced? Will any amount of facts and logical debate convince you that your current position is wrong?”

If you had any, then I’d consider it.

By: Dontgiveahoot Sun, 03 Mar 2013 05:57:00 +0000 Resorting to ad hominem attacks? I guess that’s what you have to do when your convictions are stronger than the facts that support them.

Try again. This time think about not only what I said, but what I *meant*.

You say that firearms are bad because people use them to commit suicide. I challenged that by pointing out the flaw in your logic. People *use* firearms to commit suicide, but firearms do not *cause* suicide. Japan, for instance: high suicide rate, low firearm ownership rate. Obviously people have found alternative means (substitution effect).


If not, that’s fine. We can both go on our ways thinking that we won the argument.

By: Max Paquet Sat, 02 Mar 2013 22:51:00 +0000 I can tell you don’t know know anything about either depression nor suicide, or much of anything, so you should probably shut up before you make yourself look more like an ignorant blowhard then you already do.

“What is it about firearms that causes depression?”

Case in point.

By: Dontgiveahoot Fri, 01 Mar 2013 17:56:00 +0000 Ah, so your claim is that the presence of firearms increases suicide attempts, and that the substitution effect has no bearing on suicide methods. If firearms were not present no alternative method would be used.

What is it about firearms that causes depression? I’m sure the American Psychiatric Association would be pleased to include your information in the next revision of the DSM.

By: Max Paquet Thu, 28 Feb 2013 19:46:00 +0000 What makes ‘gun death’ a meaningful subset of death? There’s a lot of it:
Suicide statistics:
Firearms are responsible for a ludicrously disproportionate percent of suicides.

By: Dontgiveahoot Wed, 27 Feb 2013 02:05:00 +0000 Sooo…. nothing?

By: Joe Doe Tue, 19 Feb 2013 21:31:00 +0000 Emma Teitel great opinion with no in-depth research, after this can you please do an article on assault spoons, they’re getting people fat.

By: Dontgiveahoot Mon, 18 Feb 2013 22:26:00 +0000 You might have missed my post when you were responding to MEoverHERE, but I really was hoping for a response.

By: Dontgiveahoot Wed, 06 Feb 2013 12:38:00 +0000

I’m curious to hear your interpretation of these figures, particularly where they relate to ‘assault rifles’, a small subsection of the ‘rifles’ category. Pay attention to the trends and keep in mind that there are even more guns (particularly of that variety) present in each successive year.

I’m also interested in any data you might have regarding increased rates of suicide attempts in homes with guns. Failing that, a logical explanation as to why a suicide with a firearm is more meaningful.

I’m curious what it is about ‘gun death’ that makes it a meaningful subset of ‘death’.

By: Max Wed, 06 Feb 2013 03:54:00 +0000 This just in! State-specific gun laws are worthless in a country with freedom of mobility! In other news, the sky is still blue.

By: Max Wed, 06 Feb 2013 03:48:00 +0000 Out of the hundreds of thousands of coalition troops deployed to Afghanistan, approximately 380 soldiers have been killed by hostile fire. Total. In fact, just the past few weeks in Mali, the French lost a single guy wiping out hundreds of rebels in Mali.

I won’t even adress the rest of the dribble because it’s clear with comments about ‘nukes’ and ‘napalm’ that you haven’t got the faintest clue about what you’re talking about.

By: Darqangelle Wed, 06 Feb 2013 02:30:00 +0000 Why is it that American firearms owners tout the importance of upholding this ONE portion of the constitution (and an arguably mis-represented one at that – I agree that your founding fathers were very smart when they wrote the thing), yet stand idly by while your government enacted laws against MANY of the other (in my humble opinion; more important) ones?

By: MEoverHERE Tue, 05 Feb 2013 23:08:00 +0000 This is entirely true. Civilian rifles will always pose a threat to any government.regardless of what weaponry you have. It is common military knowledge that in order to TAKE ground you need infantry- not nukes or jets. FEET ON THE GROUND to both capture and hold territory. When you consider a civil war this is even more easy to see as a government’s WMDs are less an option lest they destroy their own buildings, own natural resources, and of most importance your own civilians! If you can’t tell your own civilians from the “terrorists” you will kill them with your advanced technology- your napalm, nukes, bombs, rockets. Kill too many of your own and you make MORE enemy out of your own civilians- you cant use the high tech weapons, you need infantry. Also consider that the US government sees its own army as a potential threat (source = DHS) in that many are militia members and ALL have sworn to protected the US constitution.

ERGO this is very much true: “civilian rifles presented a credible threat to professional armies of the day”

By: Canadian Tue, 05 Feb 2013 23:00:00 +0000 Just FYI go ask your dad, your granddad, you son, anyone you know what gun they use to hunt. Ask them if it was ever used in a WAR. Odds are it was. I don’t care what it looks like “military style weapons” could mean just about any damn gun out there. That Lee Enfield 303, your M1 Garand and other common “ok” hunting rifles, all designed to KILL PEOPLE but also ideal for hunting. Sorry guys its not the guns that kill people, its sick twisted individuals with guns.

By: Canadian Tue, 05 Feb 2013 22:58:00 +0000 Written by a woman who had made up her mind long before any facts even entered it.

By: Max Tue, 05 Feb 2013 07:41:00 +0000 You keep talking about bombs like it supports your point, but I’m not really sure you understand the implications it has for your argument. I’m not arguing the potential for success of American insurrection or lack thereof. I’m saying that the firearms available on the civilian market don’t actually make the slightest bit of difference against a modern army, much less one as spectacularly overpowered and effective as the US armed forces. Successful terrorists (sorry, ‘patriots’) use bombs because there’s no point in trying to take on that sort of overmatch even with anti-tank weapons and machine guns. Bombs aren’t covered under the second amendment and are very illegal, which (as I’ve said several times now) makes the second a thoroughly outdated and worthless ‘check’ as far as the power of the government is concerned. You’re better off just voting.

All of the above applies to foreign support as well, because last time I checked that isn’t covered by the right to bear arms either (and last I heard the US also still has a navy, so it’s kind of a hypothetical anyways).

‘why would someone else want to deny law-abiding citizens the most effective tools to do these things?’

Maybe because the benefits of having the ability to do so are mostly illusory and the ability to mow down a horde of gangsters while guarding your five screaming children (or whatever the weepy hypothetical of the week is) really isn’t that necessary. You’re quite literally only slightly more likely to be struck by lighting then you are to be thrust into a situation where your right to bear arms actually comes to bear (pun intended). It’s simply not worth the tens of thousands of murders, injuries, and suicides.

By: Dontgiveahoot Tue, 05 Feb 2013 03:36:00 +0000 Bombs are even easier to make than firearms. I figured you knew that so I left it unsaid. Also, foreign aid isn’t a bad thing per se. While it can come with strings attached, you’ll notice that the US is not a part nor pawn of France at the moment., despite their support, both material and monetary, of our revolution.

Are you aware of the plethora of calibers that these rifles which ‘aren’t good for much else besides shooting other civilians’ come in? Or how accurate they are? Anything you can do with a rifle you can do with an AR-15 or variant. From rimfire caliber suitable for squirrels and rabbits and target shooting to calibers capable of downing a buffalo at 1000 yards and everything in between.

Beyond the hunting aspect, your statement that they ‘aren’t good for much else besides shooting other civilians’ seems to rely on the idea that violence is wrong. I would agree with that idea with one addendum: the INITIATION of violence is wrong. If someone initiates violence against you to achieve selfish goals you are justified in responding with force sufficient to nullify the threat. That doesn’t necessarily mean killing them, but it happens to be that the fastest way to stop someone is by causing trauma sufficient to send them into shock. It also happens that the fastest, surest, most portable and accessible means of doing that is through the use of firearms.

There is an saying in the firearms community ‘God made man, Sam Colt made them equal’. Trite but true. Firearms, especially repeating firearms, actualize the democratization of force. The frailest people in a society can defend against aggression from the strongest.

So yes, AR-15s are good for shooting other people as well as hunting and target shooting. I think the question becomes ‘why would someone else want to deny law-abiding citizens the most effective tools to do these things?’

By: Max Sat, 02 Feb 2013 19:54:00 +0000 What a pathetic strawman. I said that real insurgent groups just use bombs instead of small arms and hunting rifles, which are still hilariously illegal in the states, not that civilian insurgencies can never succeed (although they very rarely do without massive amounts of outside support, and that’s just foreign occupations).

The guns currently flooding the market in the US on the other hand aren’t good for much else besides shooting other civilians.

By: Dontgiveahoot Sat, 02 Feb 2013 19:21:00 +0000 Your ability to remain willfully oblivious to the thrust of an argument while simultaneously nitpicking the details will serve you well in internet arguments. The point is that guns can be made. The only way to stop that is to ban knowledge and skills relevant to manufacturing.

Your research about how war is conducted seems to consist of a YouTube video with impressive explosions and not a single thought as to how much work on the ground led up to that video. Or that drone technology goes two ways. Homemade guided missiles? Impossible.

But in the end you are correct. Member of the military are impenetrably armored perfectly skilled warriors who are led by omniscient commanders. That’s why we have had no deaths in any modern theater of war.

But certainly idiot civilians cannot take down the pinnacle of armored firepower and thus any resistance would be futile.

Next you’re going to tell me that you watched ‘Platoon’ and are an expert on small unit movements and tactics.

I’m not saying that a popularly supported insurgency would not be costly in terms of lives lost, but there are worse things than death. To say that a rebellion cannot win is to deny the evidence of history.

By: Max Sat, 02 Feb 2013 01:31:00 +0000 You made a tiny piece of a gun. Good for you.

Pistols are dangerous killings machines AGAINST civilians, but horribly ineffective against aircraft, armoured vehicles, artillery, and basically any professionally trained soldiers with assault rifles and heavy support weapons. Either pick up a goddamn book and learn about how your own country has carried out warfare over the last 237 years, or just watch this video:

Tell me more about your AR trigger.

By: Dontgiveahoot Sat, 02 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0000 A: Precision machinery? I have personally made a trigger for an AR out of a chuck of 4140 steel with a drill, hacksaw, file and hand-operated vertical mill. This guy made an AK receiver and stock out of a shovel from a hardware store.

B: So these weapons are dangerous killing machines when owned by civilians, but ineffective against agents of a tyrannical government? Seems like you use whichever angle fits the point you are currently making.

By: Max Fri, 01 Feb 2013 22:56:00 +0000 If the ballots have failed then you’ve already lost. Guns are neither a ‘check’, nor a deterrent.

By: Max Fri, 01 Feb 2013 22:42:00 +0000 A: The manufacture of the type of weapons employed by semi-successful (I use this term VERY loosely) insurgents requires precision machinery and often chemicals that are very easy to trace, which is why the most powerful insurgencies tend to just steal or smuggle in stockpiles of foreign gear instead of making their own.

B:Those weapons would be IEDs, not semi-automatic rifles and pistols. IEDs are not protected under the second, which means that the second amendment is still outdated and worthless.

By: Dontgiveahoot Fri, 01 Feb 2013 14:40:00 +0000 The bottom line is that your vote only has power as long as someone cares to count it.

By: Dontgiveahoot Fri, 01 Feb 2013 14:39:00 +0000 A: No, most of them would not. Only a tiny fraction of those professions are employed by the government.

B: It in not besides the point. All of those professions have knowledge that can easily be turned towards the manufacture of weapons in case of an insurgency against tyranny. A tyranny which, let me reiterate, I believe is unlikely in my lifetime but safeguarding against which is still prudent in the long term.

By: KeithBram Thu, 31 Jan 2013 03:08:00 +0000 Canada’s laws stem from Britain’s, but are now independent from them. If the law you used to argue gun rights can be overridden in the land where it was written, then it surely can be here as well. It is an anachronism and should be treated as such.

The law must and does move forward to meet the needs of the people.

Americans could, in theory, repeal the Second Amendment – though I suspect trying to do so would result in armed insurrection. Despite the fact that the original reason for the Amendment has long since become irrelevant, too many Americans are either too much in love with their guns or too afraid of their neighbours to make the necessary mental shift. So their society becomes ever more prone to gun violence. It is a nasty downward spiral.

By: james Thu, 31 Jan 2013 02:49:00 +0000 Sorry actually Canada must pass legislation before we can have a non-protestant monarch. Weird.

By: james Thu, 31 Jan 2013 02:47:00 +0000 Thank you for the reply. My point regarding Blackstone was to point out that the right to arms was recognized in English law almost a century after the English bill of rights 1689. Additionally, just because a law is old does not mean it is any less valid. For example, few americans would want to repeal the first amendment because it is an old right. Yes the right did initially only apply to protestant. I am not particularly familiar with religious rights in Canada or US but section 2 of the constitutional act of 1982 guarantees religious freedom. In the , only a protestant can be come king or queen legally.

Yes Britain does have tough if not draconian gun laws but comparing Britain to the UK is comparing apples with oranges. The UK does not have a written constitution with entretched rights while Canada has two constitutional documents. The Parliament in the UK is supreme which means that they have nearly unlimited power to pass legislation. In Canadan we have two levels of government: federal and provincial (which are given jurisdiction over property). Furthermore the courts are able to overturn federal and provincial legislation. Yes Britain and Canada share common law but only until 1931.

By: james Thu, 31 Jan 2013 02:19:00 +0000 Thank you for the reply. Yes government can regulate and yes ban certain things but not extinguish our right. the charter or rights and freedoms guarantees all Canadians from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment and the rights to life, liberty and security of person. What can and cannot be done must be decided by our courts in accordance to the principle of fundamental justice. And yes, rights are not absolute.

By: Chrishound Wed, 30 Jan 2013 22:03:00 +0000 The operative word in your comment is “IF”. Intellectual conviction is one thing: emotional consequences are quite another. A moment’s hesitation and you are dead. A successful conclusion to the gunfight could leave scars beyond the benefit of the killing.

By: KeithBram Wed, 30 Jan 2013 18:04:00 +0000 The only reason to argue for keeping arms to overthrow your government is that you think (a) it is likely to become necessary and (b) it is a reasonable approach to change of government.

The circumstances of your nation’s birth are well distanced from today’s reality; thus so is the original reason for the Second Amendment. It is an anachronism used by gun lovers to uphold their unfettered right to weapons.

On the other hand, though, given the increasing polarization of politics in the US, coupled with how well-armed people are generally, and militias and other crackpots doing all kinds of sabre-rattling, I’m far less confident of your nation’s future than you are. I don’t think it would take much to send your nation into collapse and turn it into a sea of armed camps. China calling your nation’s loans would likely be enough.

As for Canada, as you pointed out with your Taliban reference, armed insurrection seldom involves direct confrontation with military, so there are all kinds of options should it come down to that. Given our proximity to the US, it wouldn’t take long to arm ourselves if we wanted to go that route. Not that I expect we would…

By: Maureen Wed, 30 Jan 2013 17:05:00 +0000 Actually I am – if my life or the lives of loved ones were being threatened – you bet I would have NO PROBLEM.

By: Maureen Wed, 30 Jan 2013 17:04:00 +0000 Another ill-informed Canadian passing judgment on the American Constitution.

The Constitution is a wonderful document that anticipated the overreach of governments into the lives of individuals. The attempt at gun control is just one more way that governments overreach – witness the farce that is Chicago – it has some of the most restricted laws against guns and it is also has the highest rate of death by guns that any American city – how’s that working out? But then government always knows best – NOT!

The only thing that this writer states that is true is that she doesn’t know anything about guns, but then proceeds to inform us all what should be done about something that she doesn’t know anything about!!