The requirements on those haven't changed since the 90s. You want people to be ready for a possible guerilla war and basically still ban 15000 models of firearms by name without any reason other than 'AR-15 bad' and 'this rifle looks military even though it is a plinker jam-o-matic in a civilian caliber'. They sent many to Ukraine and they threw the latter in the garbage because of useless they are. They even banned hunting rounds for arbitrary reasons, like single shot rifles from the 1880s and the Weatherby .460 magnum, a big game hunting round, because they banned anything with a muzzle energy of more than 20K joules... Calling it an anti material rifle, which it is woefully unsuited for. Even banning the .50 BMG, which has never been used in a crime in Canada, was done entirely on some 'we have moved beyond this as a society' or 'weapons of war Canadians don't need' even though at this point the world has been regressing back to violent authoritianism at breakneck speeds AND they have done jackshit to counter any rightwing misinformation. Incels are getting worse and worse and they are still pushing for gun laws entirely due to the 1989 shooting done by a proto-incel.

If anything I firmly believe they will discourage the average Canuck from resisting and those that and survive this war will probably have to deal with all manner of issues from the government going forward.

[–] ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I get your point. And I agree with you. Those bans were not decided on factual information but on emotions.

And we all know the actual crimes aren't committed with legal weapons anyways. They're mostly done with guns coming from south of the border.

[–] oscarmeyer82@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I think you can learn the skills within our existing legal framework. If I were to introduce someone to firearms that has no prior firearms experience we'd be starting with a 22 or maybe even a pellet gun. Access to currently prohibited weapons to further advance individuals that already possess skills is a completely different topic. This doesn't even start to address the realities of the role of firearms in modern conflict.

There's lots of more valuable ways for people to spend their time "preparing" for whatever the future holds for us. If someone thinks that prohibited weapons are the key to survival they can seek training through other means like joining the reserves. Or take an active role in politics and work towards changing the legislation. Or if things are so bad already then break the law and learn/possess those weapons anyway.

[–] ohshit604@lemmy.halstead.host 1 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

with a 22 or maybe even a pellet gun.

Be me - purchases a Kriss Vector .22Lr, shot it once at the range, bought an optic for it, planned to take it out again, government bans it because “it’s a weapon of warfare” and shouldn’t be in the hands of civilians.

To say I was disappointed is an understatement.

Shameless plug, if you’re looking for a Canadian Firearms Community on Lemmy I moderate !ca_firearms_rights@lemmy.halstead.host, the community is always looking for growth!

[–] ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I wouldn't condone breaking any laws.

[–] oscarmeyer82@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

I generally agree with that sentiment. With respect to Canada's firearms laws I think the legislation we had was decent including the previously available restricted licenses for handguns. I'm not personally and advocate for handguns but I think the requirements for storage, transportation, background checks, etc. allowed those that wanted to pursue the hobby to do so while also maintaining a level of safety for the general public. There's probably some tweaks to be made and loopholes to close but a decent framework.

I don't think we're at this point in Canada but I would condone breaking laws that are amoral or unethical. To take it to an extreme, I support the actions of the resistance fighters that were breaking the laws of nazi Germany. I was intending to convey something more along the lines that if someone believes so strongly that was the only path to keeping themself and their loved ones safe then they have the freewill to act accordingly, they'll just have to live with the consequences of their actions.

[–] ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca 1 points 14 hours ago

Ok. You're taking this a little too deep. I was only referencing your comment about breaking the law with regards to firearms.