Talk:Firearms regulation in Canada/Archive 1

Possible POV

Interesting article this one, and the companion one on the UK - thank you. However I wonder about the phrase "groups that might have opposed gun control because of their normal political stance". I think that it has to be realised that it is largely a peculiarity of US society and history that right-wing attitudes go with opposition to gun control; in many other loosely "Western" societies, rightest attitudes are associated with support of a "state monopoly on violence" position, which naturally leads to support of gun control. This is the general position in the UK, for example (though there is also an urban/rural dimension in Britain). I don't want to start an accidental edit war on this one, which can be highly contentious, but would like to check out other impressions and evidence of how attitudes vary here. seglea 09:32, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Gun registry additions

I have added a section on gun registry and added to the information that was already here for this topic. I realise this is a politically sensitive issue so have tried to remain as non-partisan as possible, drawing the majority of my information from the 2002 Auditor General report. Comments/edits are welcomed, I am certainly not an expert on this topic, just trying to make some sense of it. Pasd 16:04, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Source?

However, Canada has a violent crime rate approximately twice that of the United States.

Where does that information come from? Must be a per capita figure, does it include the same categories of crimes and so on? Sound suspicious, esp. considering Canada's much lower murder rate... Krupo 19:57, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Well, of course it's per capita. That's what a rate is--not the number of crimes, but the frequency. I don't know about violent crimes, but I've read from multiple sources that Canada's overall crime rate is higher than that of the United States (and Great Britain's is higher than both). Funnyhat 05:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

To answer this question: "does it include the same categories of crimes and so on?"

-- no. Figures for the two countries (and between the US and numerous other countries) are not remotely comparable.

Most importantly, the US does not include common assaults (essentially, assaults without injury) under the "violent crime" rubric. Canada does. See here: http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/070718/d070718b.htm "Assault level one" accounted for far more than 50% of the violent crimes recorded in 2006.

In addition, Canada no longer has an offence called "rape"; there are three levels of sexual assault, defined by factors including the force used. Some of the offences covered are entirely non-violent, and this makes no comparison possible with US figures.

I hope this helps. And I hope I'm doing this right ... Iverglas 23:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Upon further examination, my suspicions are deepened. My understanding that the claim in this wiki article is correct: Moore seeks to answer, in his own unique style, the questions of why the Columbine massacre occurred, and why the United States has higher rates of violent crimes (especially crimes involving guns) than other developed nations, in particular Germany, France, Australia, Japan, the United Kingdom, and especially Canada. Going to change that claim in the article now. Krupo 20:34, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

I certainly agree with your removal of the statement: "Canada has a violent crime rate approximately twice that of the United States." However, I'm curious about your comment that "some argue that more violent crimes are instead committed with weapons other than firearms, negating Canada's better position." Some may well argue this, but do they have data to support it? Sunray 08:43, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)

• In that case, I'm emboldened to completely remove that last part - I included in in deferrence to the other POV, although I don't support it myself. Seems like it's just made-up, though, eh? Krupo 19:21, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I was just going to question that statement. I can't find my sources right now, but the comparision was between Vancouver and Seattle. Point being, if you take racial/ethnic groups (and hence (roughly) socio-economic levels (because of imbedded racism in the US)) into account, Canadians are much more violent (in the firearm homicide) category than comprable Americans.

~ender 2005-02-26 08:12:MST

This article needs more sources. Too much BS 76.64.220.155 (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

US stats are incident-based

From the article: "Some mistakenly compare government data directly between the two countries (i.e. 958 per 100,000 for Canada vs 523 per 100,000 for the United States) and conclude that Canada is more violent. This comparison is inaccurate because Canada collects the incidence of reported violent crimes, while the United States collects violent crimes committed."

The UCR is also an incident-based system. In fact, the reporting program is called NIBRS - National Incident-Based Reporting System. [1]

Further clarification is needed to explain the difference in reporting criteria that would account for the disparity in rates. And it'd be nice to have some kind of statistical cite for the info, too. 24.148.249.55 15:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You cannot compare apples and oranges!

This is an excellent and concise history of gun control in Canada. Ignore the propaganda of the anti-gun lobby. Do your own research. Both the U.K. Home Office and the Australian government publish firearms statistics on the web. Make sure though, that you are comparing similar statistics and not mixing them.

The finding is clear that Canada cannot, based on the realities, support the continuance of the gun registry in it's present form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeister (talk • contribs)

There is no "anti-gun lobby" in Canada per se. There is, however, a pro-gun lobby, ideologically motivated and at least partially organised (and funded?) by the right-wing gun lobby in the United States. Heavenlyblue (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Your post reads like an introductory course on intellectual dishonesty. Invoke a technicality, paint with a broad brush, "just asking a question", sling some mud and maybe a bit of well poisoning too, though it's hard to tell through all the innuendo. If you want latin try "per veritatem vis" it will serve you better than "per se", and please remember that amongst your fellow Canadians are people who disagree with you for good reasons, though you may never hear it if the first thing out of your mouth is a smear. Nailedtooth (talk) 02:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

You've said nothing to disprove my point. And talk about smearing someone!! Heavenlyblue (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

NPOV/Cleanup

This is a terribly written article, full of bias of every kind. The section 'Commentary' is clearly biased against the gun registry, provided a voice for its opponents and ignoring any supporters. The one sentence with a citation is nothing more than a Conservative's political opinion, not backed by any facts. The section on the Dawson College shooting displays a chronological bias: giving too much prominence to the event just because it happened recently. If any shooting deserves it's own section it would be the Polytechnique massacre. The 'Other' section is again commentary masked as an NPOV. Sentences like 'The murder of four RCMP officers in Mayerthorpe...has underscored the futility of the firearms registry and the Firearms Act itself.' express an opinion, not fact. Similarly, the Violent Crimes statistics have no place in this article, and were almost certainly placed there by an pro gun-legislation editor. And the 'Complex Political Situation' tries vainly to guess the motivation of the population in its support or criticism of gun control without citing anything at all. It is nothing more than opinion. Seeing as this is linked from a front page article, it should be cleaned up right away - 3:30 , 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Minimum age to purchase a firearm

This article doesn't seem very clear on what the minimum age to purchase a firearm in Canada is. The only figure stated is 16 more than a hundred years ago, and that's can't still be accurate. --—JeremyBanks Talk 03:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

18 is the minimum age, I am adding this now. A firearm can be used by someone younger, but not purchased. The minimum age for a minor licence is 12. If you are this age and get a licence, you can borrow an use unsupervised a rifle or shotgun. You may use a firearm if you are under 18 without a minors licence if you are under direct supervision of a licenced adult. http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/info_for-renseignement/factsheets/minor_e.asp

Hey hey, why not throw my name against that above paragraph and link? I have edited the article, I hope it is acceptable by everyone (or at least by most)Pissedpat 08:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That's very interesting. Thanks for your contribution! =] —JeremyBanks Talk 01:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of section on Dawson College shooting

I just reverted the removal of the section on the Dawson College shooting because I feel it helps to put the laws into perspective. I'd appreciate anybody's input on this. --—JeremyBanks Talk 00:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph "This article states firearms registration laws, the shooters name and no information pertaining to the Dawson college shooting. It has no room in the Canadian Gun politics on Wikipedia." by 24.141.244.29 Does not belong in the article, it belongs in the talk page. Regardless of how I feel about whether it belongs in the article or not the main page in not the location to have quarrels. Personally, I would only recomend leaving the reference to the shooting in the article if the event turns out to have an influence upon Canadian firearm law, and even then, more of a simple reference to the event, not a full description including gun model and description of the weapons action. If this event becomes as much of a turning point as the ecole polytechnique then sure put it in. But as it stands, this event will likely go down in history the same way the taber shooting did, a tragic event that had little effect on the law.Pissedpat 06:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC

The Dawson Shooting incident does not provide perspective into Canadian gun laws and gun politics in Canada. The article should be in another section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumby1111 (talk • contribs)

Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and that this particular article needs to stand the test of time as an overview of Canadian gun politics. Tempting as it might be in the moment, we shouldn't turn this article into a collection and commentary of recent and dramatic crimes that involved firearms. I don't see any reason to include a section on the Dawson College incident any more than the hundreds of other historic crimes committed in Canada that involved a firearm. Down the road, if this incident actually changes the politics of firearms, then we can cite it and include it in the article. For now, it's speculation and/or original research. --Ds13 23:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just reduced the Dawson College section to what I believe is relevant to an article about politics. i.e. very little, and no more than most incidents involving firearms, of which there are hundreds. All the details of the offender and the firearm are easily found through the main Dawson College shooting article and don't belong here. I still think having a section for this incident is a slippery slope though, so while this is an improvement, I am still in favor of removing the section altogether. --Ds13 02:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting as we in Québec have been dropped with extra provincial laws and courses for restricted firearms as a result. Perhaps we could add a subheading about Québec Firearm Politics? We could have a little section in that about the impacts of that incident and others and everyone will be happy. Here are some references, unfortunately only in French:[2][3]Gunnnut (talk) 06:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Gun Registry

I am sorry but the neutrality is not in question here, it is clearly and absolutly a non-neutral article. It is best for everyone that no information be presented instead of blatently ussubstatiated and wrong information. Removing:

"The legislation was written primarily to avoid situations such as the Oka Crisis rather than irrational behaviour. Notice that the firearm used in the École Polytechnique Massacre (A Ruger Mini-14) is still non-restricted, yet all firearms used by the natives at Oka are now prohibited. The present law requires all firearms to be registered. The cost of the registry has soared from the original two million dollar cost promised by Allan Rock to nearly three billion dollars. This proved embarrassing for the Liberal Government and has led to increased calls for the registry's cancellation. The Liberal government of the day originally claimed that costs would be recovered through registration fees, however the Ministry later decided to waive the fees in an effort to increase compliance rates. This decision has somewhat contributed to the huge increase in the registry's cost; however, most of the costs of the scandal resulted from poor planning, impossible goals, and money being siphoned off to Liberal supporters as part of what came to be known as Adscam.[citation needed]"

Citation needed is an understatement here. The declaration that the registry is costing nearly $3 billion is unnerving. One article by the CBC has claimed that the over $1 billion figure was inacurate that that nearly $2 billion might be more reasonable when including money set aside to dun the registry for future years. I have never, anywhere outside of this wikipedia article, seen a reference to $3 billion. If the best that can be done to support this is a request that someone else finds a citations, I feel that that is to much on the side of heresay to be part of an encyclopedia. Mentioning the Oka crisis with no citation or sliver of evidence is the same. The subarticle Other is in much the same state.Pissedpat 07:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the the Dawson shooting article reflects tabloid reading material and is a standing insult to the contents of Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumby1111 (talk • contribs) }

I am a rank novice at this and am hoping to find the best way of commenting on this article.

The historical review is well done. Much of the rest is seriously problematic.

To start with the last: the Canadian Coalition for Gun Control is not an "anti-gun advocacy organization" -- nor, in fact, is the National Firearms Association a "pro-gun advocacy organization". Neither organization advocates either for or agin firearms; that would be nonsensical, as being pro- or con- inanimate objects is hardly rational. The Canadian Coalition for Gun Control is exactly what it says it is, would could be summed up as "pro-gun control"; and the National Firearms Association ... well, one can look at its web site and see what it is, but it's hard to put in a nutshell without sounding biased, even if simply offering an accurate characterization ... might be best described as "opposed to most existing gun control".

"Critics say the majority of handguns used in crime are smuggled in from the United States thus banning handguns in Canada will make no difference to the supply." -- another case of they can say it all they want, but the assertion that a majority of handguns used in crime are smuggled appears to be false. The Toronto Police Service has data on this subject, for example.

"there is no registry of offenders who are prohibited from owning firearms or a requirement that they keep the government advised of their place of residence" -- this assertion also appears to be false. Police have access to information elsewhere than in the Firearms Registry. An individual on probation or parole will always have to report address changes. The CPIC and FPS systems provide the relevant information:

"The FPS/CPIC data bank provides police and criminal justice agencies with an up-to-date national inventory of offenders which is used by police agencies for law enforcement duties and by the courts for sentencing purposes. This data bank is the largest national offender-based data bank which is continuously updated on a daily basis. Once an indictable charge is laid against a person, their fingerprints and other information (number of charges, type of disposition) are submitted to FPS staff for entry into the CPIC system. ... The Department of Justice requested a download of FPS/CPIC data from the RCMP. The RCMP supplied a file inclusive of all 1991 firearms offences, which contained the following information: the offender's sex, date of birth, date of sentence, place of sentence, statute they were charged under, type of offence, prior/subsequent offences if applicable, and type of disposition for that specific offence and (any) other offences." http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/pol-leg/res-eval/publications/1990-95/sec85_rpt_e.asp

"In Canada, gun control is more of a rural versus urban issue." -- looks like a case of correlation being represented as causation. The right/left split in Canada is also largely rural/urban. Do positions on firearms control result from rural/urban status, right/left political views, or neither? The fact is that left-voting western rural dwellers oppose firearms control -- but so do right-voting Ontario town/city dwellers.

"all provinces except Quebec have refused to prosecute people for these charges effectively nullifying the law for simple possession offenses" -- this is simply false. August 24, 2007 headline: "Ottawa man accused of stockpiling 30,000 rounds of ammunition ... a man accused of possessing 30 firearms ...". Police normally lay charges only when an offence comes to their attention, in this as in any other situation.

"access to and the use of firearms can differ between provinces" -- a blatantly unsubstantiated assertion.

"Referring to Bill C-68, John Dixon, a former advisor to Deputy Minister of Justice John C. Tait, stated that the Firearms Act was not public safety policy, but rather an election ploy by the Liberal party of Canada intended to help defeat Prime Minister Kim Campbell." -- and we care because ... and what does anybody else have to say about it??

Oops. That last one appears under "History of gun politics in Canada", so my opinion of that review is lower than I originally thought. That presentation of one uncited and irrelevant comment, supporting one political position, has no place in this section.

Quite a lot of stuff still needs to be removed from this paper. Certainly there needs to be information about various views on the subject. It needs to consist of quotations with citations, not selective and unsubstantiated assertions framed as what some people think. Iverglas 00:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

First, I'd like to thank you for checking over the article. It doesn't get much attention so a critical eye is always welcome. The issues you have presented are important and I think you have some good points.

Labels of the groups: They do appear to be mislabeled. Perhaps it would be better to go into more detail. The NFA has more than one purpose and other groups have more than one purpose so providing more detail on them might be prudent.

Smuggled %: Here's a preliminary source. [4] 70% smuggled, 30% stolen. Yeah, OK, it's a Toronto Sun editorial, but it's an indication that the actual stats are out there. Having the actual stats instead of just "critics say", "supporters say" would be a benefit.

No murderer registry: I've never liked that sentence either, it seems to be a straight-up POV problem.

Urban vs Rural: I don't think that statement speaks to causation. I think all it states is that a correlation exists. Unless gun control isn't more of a urban vs rural issue in Canada I don't see a problem with it.

Simple possession: The wording is 'simple possession'. That takes into account charges laid in connection to other crimes or gross violations of the law, as is the case with your example. Many people where I live have openly flaunted their violation of the law and have not been charged, nor have their firearms been confiscated. The RCMP have publicly (on video) refused to charge them. I can see that the wording of that sentence is a bit ambiguous though. Maybe enforcement is "spotty" rather than completely null.

Access differers between provinces: That phrase by itself could be false, but you have taken it out of context. The preceding text is the substantiation for that statement. As an example, the CFO of BC will only issue a inter-province ATT if the applicant is a member of IPSC. In Alberta, an inter-province ATT does not require IPSC. Of course, finding available sources for this is nigh impossible.

Other quotes: The quotes need to be balanced for sure.

Theres quite a lot of work to do to get this article into proper form. Perhaps we should develop a list of things that need to be done for this article. Nailedtooth 01:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Licensing

I would like to expand on the actual licensing process here in Canada. Info as to what kinds of tests you must take, what kinds of permits you require. The diferrent classifictions: prohibited, restricted and non-restricted firarms, etc. We are missing a lot of info here. Thoughs anyone??Cavell 05:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC) The prohibited class includes multiple sub-calsses: 12.2: Fully Automatic 12.3: Automatics Converted to be Semi-Automatic 12.4: Short-Barrel OIC (The guns in this class don't have prohibited qualities, they just look scary, RCMP were odered to raid any houses with these guns and confiscate them, but remember registration dosen't lead to confiscation) 12.5: Long-Barrel OIC (The guns in this class don't have prohibited qualities, they just look scary.) 12.6: Handguns in .25(?) or .32 caliber or with a barrel length under or equal to 4" 12.7: Inherited 12.6 Handguns Made before 1947 (Mostly Lugers)

Restricted is handguns or Long-Guns with an OAL length of under 26" or a BBL length of under 18.5" in the case of Semi's

Non-Restricted is anything that isn't Prohib or Restricted.

The answer?

Full on gun control is never the answer, some of the guns people own have sentimental value to them like they belonged to a loved one. if you take away guns completely the bad guys will still find ways to obtain them. How long will it take to realize this?

• The talk page is only to be used to discuss changes to the article itself. Talk pages are not for general conversation or for someone to write their personal views. Please keep this in mind. Windscar77 11:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Simple -- leave it as it is

It's not possible to write a completely unbiased article on such a debatable subject; it would inevitably have a slant to either a conservative or to a "liberastic" point of view. I prefer it being as is, on the conservative side, -- and clearly, that's how the majority of the Canadian population feels (which is proven by the utter failure of the Gun registry project). The views of the vociferous (and somewhat extremist) gun-control minority should in no way be promulgated here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dsizintsev (talk • contribs) 23:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

"Futility"

Removed this sentence for obvious POV: "The murder of four RCMP officers in Mayerthorpe, Alberta in 2005 and two RCMP officers in Spiritwood Saskatchewan in 2006, in both cases by well known violent police haters who liked firearms, has underscored the futility of the firearms registry and the Firearms Act itself." Using words like 'futility' are clearly POV. Blotto adrift 18:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"Commentary"

Removed this section. It fits poorly with the flow of the article (such as it is) and consisted mainly of uncited statements. The single cited comment was added to the history section. Also, the name "commentary" suggests POV, as someone is providing commentary on the pervious history section. Gun politics in Australia provides a good template for this page. Blotto adrift 18:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Gun registry—results

I've changed the section titled "Other" to the above. I am also moving statements from Fantino and Mauser here"

"O.P.P. Commissioner Julian Fantino is opposed to the gun registry, stating in a press release:

We have an ongoing gun crisis including firearms-related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered, although we believe that more than half of them were smuggled into Canada from the United States. The firearms registry is long on philosophy and short on practical results considering the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives."

Gary Mauser, a member of the Fraser Institute and professor at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, has stated:

The handguns being misused are illegal. Nobody thinks banning guns will stop violent crime, and there is no empirical support for gun controls working.

For every such comment, I can find several to the contrary. For example:

"Because 50% of the firearms found in crime scenes can be traced back to their owners according to some estimates, making traceable is an important feature of the new system. Under the of old system, we didn't have any way of knowing what firearms there might have been with the exception of restricted weapons."

—Chief Cal Johnston, Regina Police Service and President of Saskatchewan Association of Chiefs of Police, Star Phoenix, June 17, 2000

"We will continue to defend this legislation because we are convinced that a national licensing and registration system with continuous eligibility checks and more detailed and accessible data will facilitate police work while enhancing public safety."

—Brian Ford, Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Chief and Secretary Treasurer, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Toronto Star, July 26, 1999

"Registering handguns in Canada over the past 60 years has clearly paid off. The United States serves as a constant reminder of what happens when a government fails to make that investment."

—Arn Snyder, Canadian Criminal Justice Association, Ottawa Citizen, July 31, 1999

In order to produce an article that meets WP:NPOV, what is needed is a well-written summary of the views on both sides. One or two quotes such as the above could be used, provided that both sides of the argument are presented fairly. Sunray 02:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of clean-up tag

I didn't really agree with placement of the tag back in September 2006, but as I was away from WP, for several months didn't comment. Since then, there have been many improvements. While the article isn't perfect, I think we can safely remove the clean-up tag. Tags are a barrier to the reader, and are only meant for short term situations. Sunray 01:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Provincial versus federal

There's a lot of speculation about the role of provincial courts in this article -- the contributor seems confused about the role of the provincial governments in the enforcement of gun regulations. As a general rule, if it's a federal regulation, the federal courts do the enforcement. Provinces don't have a specific role in enforcing the gun registry laws -- the police do. I've removed one sentence and tagged the rest. Unless someone can come up with corroborating references, this stuff is living on borrowed time. In general, the article is poorly referenced and has the taint of bias. I can see why it was tagged for cleanup in the first place. --Rhombus 07:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Law enforcement and policing are provincial matters. I cannot see anything wrong with the wording as it is. I do agree that it needs citations. With regard to the "clean-up" tag, the article has been vastly improved since September 2006 (when the tag was placed on the article). There are still sections that need work, however the lead and history sections of the article are relatively well-written (and referenced). Sunray 07:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Auditor General's Report

The article says:

"The Auditor General's report also found that there is a lack of evidence to support the effectiveness of the gun registry, or to prove that it is meeting its stated goal of improving public safety. The report states:

"The performance report focuses on activities such as issuing licences and registering firearms. The Centre does not show how these activities help minimize risks to public safety with evidence-based outcomes such as reduced deaths, injuries and threats from firearms."

I think this part could be worded better. The Auditor General is noting that the Centre does not report on the effectiveness of the program as part of its annual performance report, and presumably wants the Centre to include this information in future reports. The section in the article could be interpreted that the Auditor General stated that there was no evidence that the program was meeting its objectives.

The Auditor General's role is not to comment on public policy, but rather its implimentation. Whether or not evidence of the effectiveness of the program could be found elsewhere would be outside the scope of her audit. So the Auditor's criticism is of the Centre, not of the policy of the long gun registry.

Also, since the article is about "politics" it might be helpful to mention the views of different political parties regarding the implimentation and continuation of the program. It seems that the original policy was a cynical wedge issue, but not between Liberals and the Reform Party, but between Liberals and the other three moderate parties: Progressive Conservatives, New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

She may be criticizing the Center for not providing information on the registries effectiveness however, I don't think it changes the argument much. She's still saying the body set up to administer the long gun registry cannot provide quantitative evidence for the program's effectiveness. Technically, no, she's not saying there's no evidence. She's simply saying that the body most intimately involved with the long gun registry can't or won't present evidence to justify it's own existence.

Making that kind of distinction about her intention changes the nature of her statement but it really doesn't stop it from being a criticism of the program.

In any case, I agree that rewrites are in order. Nailedtooth (talk) 08:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Violent crime, suicide and accidents in Canada

Koby2 has revised this section with additional statistics on average suicide rates, average firearm suicide rates and accidental shooting rates. This is all information from Statistics Canada and he provides citations. However, my reaction is that the numbers overwhelm the text in that section to make it less readable. In the interests of avoiding an edit war, I would like to discuss it here. Please respect the groundrules specified in the talkheader at the top of the page and bear in mind that editorial decisions are made by consensus. Sunray (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As of this date I think the section reads well. I modified the portion pertaining to bill 127, the term is now archaic and not meaningful to the average Canadian never-mind the average global reader. However I do question the overall need for a section describing violent crime, suicides, and accidents in Canada in an article entitled "Gun Politics in Canada". I see why there is a relation, but I don't think this is made clear, and the level of detail involved seems to detract rather than add to the discussion. It is somewhat non-sequitur. Halogenated (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

A large part of this section (+50%) has more to do with domestic violence, violent crime, murder rates, etc. as opposed to actual firearm related crime. I will be editing it somewhat. Gunnnut (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This section really needs editing. Was this your doing Gunnnut?76.64.220.155 (talk) 03:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Gunnnut. The first three paragraphs have nothing to do with gun crime at all, and could (should?) be removed without losing relevant information. I am not a regular contributor and am therefore leery of making the changes. Kavius (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

As scary as it was, it seemed consistent with the discussion, so I just did it. Because this is a touchy topic, I have left notes as to what changes I made. I tried not to change any actual statements, merely bring the section on topic and better organized. Change Log:

• removed all statistics not related to firearms
• added introductory paragraph stating why all the statistics are relevant
• rephrased some statements to emphasize relevance
• grouped all murder statistics together
• corrected suicide statistics for 1978 (15.2->14.5)
• rephrased suicide portion to emphasize inter-relatedness of statistics
• adjusted suicide references according to [5] and marked missing citations
• accidental death: made implications explicit. May result in bias.
• accidental death: is this even relevant? The numbers are negligable, and so is the discussion online. People say "accident" in their online discussions and paper brochures, but only in pointed lists; otherwise they discuss suicide and assault. I'm kind of thinking that the statistics don't say anything about correlation, because there are no studies that have even looked at correlation, because there isn't enough to correlate. I mention all of this, because I can't think of what to say about this without flat out staying "gun accidents don't happen, therefore we don't need laws to prevent 'gun accidents'" (obviously not appropriate for wikipedia).

Kavius (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Lee-Enfield

Why would the Lee-Enfield be exempted by name from the magazine capacity limit on semi-automatic centerfire rifles, when it's a bolt-action rifle? 71.203.209.0 (talk) 08:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The magazines are exempted since they fit some LE semi-autos, but were designed for and used overwhelmingly in LE bolt action rifles.Nailedtooth (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Legality of suppressors

Researching something for the suppressor article, I've been able to verify that importing a suppressor into Canada is prohibited. (http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/publications/pub/bsf5044-eng.html) What about use, possession, sale, transfer, and any grandfathered status of these devices? I've seen many unreliable sources talk about vague law(s) surrounding devices designed to reduce the report of a firearm... can someone point me at an actual regulation (vague or otherwise) from a government source? Thanks! --Ds13 (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's the criminal code of Canada. http://198.103.98.49/en/showdoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_III//en#anchorbo-ga:l_III . Part III: FIREARMS AND OTHER WEAPONS. "prohibited device" means (c) a device or contrivance designed or intended to muffle or stop the sound or report of a firearm.

Now, it's of some note that 'prohibited devices' are not illegal, just given 'prohibited' status. With the correct license they are legal to possess. Good luck getting one. Nailedtooth (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Great, that's the sort of thing I was looking for. Agreed, about the distinction between prohibited and illegal. Thanks. --Ds13 (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"Though less contentious", first line, first paragraph

Less contentious than what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.24.9 (talk) 11:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Complex political situation

This section has no sources and is entirely point-of-view, an obscure one at that. It should be deleted. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

First, it does have sources, just not as many as it should have. Second, what the section is trying to do is summarize the politics of guns in Canada. Getting the section to a state that is truly representative of the political situation is a herculean task. The section is failing at that task right now, but that's what you'd expect. The best way forward is to suggest improvements, not deletion. Third, please bear in mind that calling the POV 'obscure' is just another POV. It may be obscure for where you live in Canada, but there are many places where it's not and where your POV is regarded as 'obscure'. This is, of course, just another way of saying that getting the 'Complex political situation' to be representative is going to be difficult.

How do you feel the section could be improved? Nailedtooth (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Your comment "it does have sources" is inaccurate - the only source cited is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. One section states: "A common sentiment among the Firearms community is that the Federal Government can confiscate privately owned firearms in a similar fashion to the confiscation of the possessions of Japanese Canadians during World War II." This is the language of conspiracy theorists. There is a "Firearms Community"? The first paragraph states: "those rurally tend to oppose gun control." Really? The farmers of Quebec are upset that they cannot own RPGs and machine guns? Or is this what the WCC thinks?

Can you please at least give a source to some group that presents this opinion? The Four Deuces (talk)

The section you excised has references 25-31. Seven is more than one, if you didn't notice. The section is poorly sources, that I've already agreed, but it's not as poorly sourced as you want to make out.

Your shrill tone and loaded language don't give me confidence in your willingness to discuss this topic fairly. Perhaps the section is slanted, but as I've already pointed out, the point of view you've expressed twice now would be considered in the realm of "conspiracy theorists" in some circles. You can't claim to be in sole possession of the keys of neutrality. That's why this discussion page exists.

I think the best way forward at this point in time is to add a POV tag to the section while we discuss what actually needs to go in there.

Point of fact: RPG's (minus the explosives of course) and Machineguns are already legal to own in Canada. Grenade launchers (and anything else over 25mm for that matter) are unregulated and machineguns are obtainable with a prohibited-class license. How do you think movies with these things in them get made in Canada? Nailedtooth (talk) 08:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The statements that large numbers of Canadians oppose gun control is factually incorrect. The only Canadian organization fighting to repeal gun laws is the "Canadian Unlicensed Firearms Owners Association". The issue of "property rights" is not a major part of Canadian opposition to the firearms act, and in any case property rights would not protect owners of illegal guns (see Reference re Firearms Act (Can.), 2000 SCC 31 [2000] 1 S.C.R. 783 ). The final paragraph contains language that is extreme, e.g., "dissatisfaction with the Canadian Constitution", "the Firearms community", "the Federal Government can confiscate privately owned firearms", "Japanese Canadians during World War II". Terms like "dissatisfaction with the Canadian Charter of Rights", "firearms owners", and "the Crown" would be more neutral and the reference to Japanese Canadians trivializes their experiences which involved more than loss of property.

The first paragraph is also poorly worded: "Toronto reacted by calling for ... while Vancouver responded by". Are we talking about the mayors, the councils, the police chiefs, or the citizens?

At the very least the first and final paragraphs should be deleted, and sources should be found for the other sections.

The Four Deuces (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's an Ipsos poll that shows 52% of Canadians support scrapping the gun registry. It show that the statement "large numbers of Canadians oppose gun control" is factually correct. http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=2038

Here is a news article with a poll of Canadians that shows a geographic split. http://dailyuw.com/2006/6/19/canada-sets-sights-on-gun-registry/ It also shows a large number of Canadians oppose gun control (minimum 29% according to the article) and says that those that support gun control may not agree with the current system.

I agree the language of the section needs to be changed. It does seem to be poorly defined. However, the issue of property rights is seen as an issue of gun control because without property rights firearms that were legally purchased and owned may be made illegal with a pen stroke and seized without compensation. "The Crown" is a common term to refer to Canadian provincial or federal governments, but may be confusing for non-Canadians, so it should probably be changed. The reference to Japanese internment during WWII is a bit much, I think.

The first paragraph needs to be reworded to reflect the data we now have about the geographic split. A single sentence will probably do. The last paragraph needs to be reworded and pared down, but it contains a reference, so I don't think complete deletion is wise. Nailedtooth (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The Ipsos Reid polls referred to apparently did not ask respondents about gun control but about gun registries. 2004: http://www.ipsos-reid.com/pdf/media/mr040201.1b.pdf 2006: http://www2.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=7e3108d3-6356-4925-a75d-915bbfd48d54 The LA Times appears to confuse people opposing any gun registry with people opposing any gun control.

Any comment about the rural/urban split should be explained. Your reference merely states that support for a gun registry was 71% in Ontario and Quebec vs 51% in the four western provinces. It is a big jump to conclude:

In Canada, support for gun control is divided along both along rural versus urban lines and east versus west lines. Those rurally tend to oppose gun control, those urban tend to support it. Those in the west tend to oppose gun control, those in the east tend to support it. So, rural westerners are most opposed to gun control, urban easterners most support it. Evidence for this theory is that almost all calls for greater gun controls come from urban eastern Canada (e.g. Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal) and are strongly opposed by rural western Canada and to a lesser extent urban western Canada (e.g. Edmonton, Calgary, suburban Vancouver).

Any analysis of opinion polls should be taken from the poll company's own press release or from peer-reviewed literature, and not selectively from the tables. In the case of the 2004 poll, the summary under "Slim Majority Want to See Gun Registry Scrapped" all the information should be presented as found or omitted from the article. The WP editor should not determine which of these findings is more important or draw inferences. Also, one should try to use the most reliable sources available. The IPSOS-Reid press release of their own polls is more reliable than an LA Times summary. (The 2006 poll should be used because it is more current.)

The property rights issue is settled. (See Reference re Firearms Act (Can.), 2000 SCC.) In criminal matters, the Crown's power to seize property does not violate property rights. An analogy is that in the US, the federal government does not compensate citizens for confiscation of illegal drugs or weapons used in crimes.

The term "The Firearms Community" is unhelpful because it is language used by some pressure groups opposed to the gun registry, particularly extreme anti-gun control activists.

The use of the term "federal government" is factually incorrect. In practice most prosecutions are by provincial prosecutors so the federal government is not involved. The federal government is a lightning rod term among the American far right, who believe that their federal government has usurped state power for sinister reasons, and appears to have been picked up by Canadian anti-gun control activists.

There is also a sense in this article that there is strong support for the registry among urban populations that somehow shows a polarization in society. You might also wish to separate out the long gun registry and the proposed hand gun ban which are two separate issues. One can support one but not the other.

The Four Deuces (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I originally wrote something much longer, but I see we're getting bogged down in specifics when we haven't even decided on the generalities. The only question that matters at this point is "What do you think the aim and scope of that section should be?" Those are the kind of ideas that will solve this. Once we decide that, deciding on wording and sources becomes a trivial problem. Nailedtooth (talk) 06:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Good question. Why does an article called "Gun Politics in Canada" have a section called "Complex political situation"? Perhaps you could answer that. The Four Deuces (talk) 11:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't properly know. From what I remember the section title was taken from other gun politics articles, but having reviewed them they all seem to have deleted it in favor of other means of explaining the political situation. The article is called "Gun Politics in Canada" so you would expect it to explain the political situation, not just laws and regulations. So, perhaps the section does need to be removed and replaced with another format entirely. I'm going to review the other articles again to see if how they're going about it is more effective than what we've got here. Nailedtooth (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link to the June 2004 text of "Complex political situation" as it appeared when it was separated out of the section called "1995 legislation including national gun registry": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_politics_in_Canada&diff=next&oldid=3972300\ The current section does not seem to have retained any of the original writing. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Complex political situation: East vs West

When someone says east, I think PEI, NS, NB, & NFLD. Not Ontario and Quebec. You know, Canada doesn't end at Quebec. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.114.26 (talk) 21:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Reference to Ontario and Quebec as eastern is not generally used outside western Canada. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

In Canada it is called "murder"

There is no such thing under Canadian law as "homicide". The Criminal Code lists Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide, and not homicide under section 239 ff. The article should reflect this. --Fremte (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Also, "homicide" is also a general word while murder is a specific crime. Nailedtooth (talk) 05:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Confiscations do happen

Has anyone thought of updating the page with info on the current fiasco with the Norinco T97s? Legal owners of registered Norinco T97 rifles and High Standard 10B shotguns have suddenly been told that the RCMP has, out of the blue, declared their firearms prohibited (a decision they refuse to provide an explanation for) and must be turned over. The mainstream media seems quite quiet about the whole affair, though (the CFP website's devoid of anything, too), so I'll have to settle for other sources to quote:

• Seizures by RCMP go too far
• Can you believe politicians and their promises?
• Bureaucrats Steal from Canadians
• SEIZURE ALERT

I'll try and add something more mainstream... if I can find it. --Grugnir (talk) 04:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This is what I have heard around the burn barrel at my gun range. Less than 100 T97 rifles were brought in to Canada by a particular gun company. The gun company used its own verifier to examine them, and classified them as 'non-restricted' firearms. Once these non-restricted firearms were registered the gun company did an order for some more with shorter barrels. The second wave, would be 'restricted' firearms due to the shorter barrel. When they arrived in Canada, Customs looked at the shipment and sent them to the RCMP gun labs for evaluation. They were examined and determined to be converted automatics, making them prohibited. Since the only difference between the first batch and the second batch was barrel length, the original ones were also ruled prohibited. Since they were registered, the owners were sent letters instructing them to turn them in. The guns never should have been allowed in to Canada in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.64.36.85 (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Allowed P90??

Im sorry but in the "Laws and regulations section of this article they say this "Purpose built bullpup firearms such as the FN P-90 and IMI Tavor are not subject to this regulation since the stock is integral to their workings and is thus not removable." but both the FN P90 and FN Five-seveN pistol are not allowed because the 5.7 caliber they use can easily penetrate a CRISAT helmet/vest at 300 meter. I would sugest removing the P90 from this. (Patrick Trudeau -> Patrickgt13@rocketmail.com ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.20.54.19 (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The post should be edited to PS90, which is available in Non-Restricted, and Restricted variants. The PS90 is of the same caliber as the FN P90, the FN P90 is prohibited because of barrel length not caliber. Any FMJ centerfire bullet can penetrate body armor at reasonable distances (100 - 200 yards), and 5.7 caliber ammunition is not on the list of prohibited ammunition.--99.241.198.35 (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

-P90 is a sub-machine gun, not a pistol. -P90 is prohibited because it is a fully automatic firearm. -SS196SR and SS197SR 5.7x28mm rounds are non-prohibited as they are sporting rounds. The SS190 and L191 rounds are prohibited as they were designed by FN to defeat body armor, which they do very well. And no, not all FMJ centerfire cartridges can go through body armor... Seriously if you don't know what you are talking about, do not post b.s. on this talk page or the article itself, there's already enough as it is and the quality of the article is not going to increase as a result. This article is about gun politics in our country, not about how cool you think the P90/PS90 are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.113.1.122 (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Why are you a bitch Patrick Trudeau?75.119.253.64 (talk) 02:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Edited Classification of firearms

Hello everyone, thank you for contributing to this article. I found the heading "Classification of firearms" somewhat lacking, so I edited it a little. Will be editing further soon to include list of currently prohibited firearms (+exclusions).Gunnnut (talk) 07:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I have completed the editing of the section on Classes of firearms to include the list of prohibited firearms. I hope everyone finds this useful.Gunnnut (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I have added some "commercial customisations" that would otherwise be classified as prohibited, but are available under restricted and non-restricted classes due to commercial manufacturer modifications. Gunnnut (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Cost of the Registry

The link for the cost (stating the inaccurate number of $4 million) is dead. I obviously (as shown on my talk page) don't know how to format a reference properly, so can somebody perhaps put this link in: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/fire-feu-eval/eval-eng.pdf

If you scroll down to page 13 where it says "registration costs" $22.3 million.

Thanks.

174.5.11.131 (talk) 05:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Excellent link, thanks for participating! The reference in the article actually discusses the firearms program as a whole if you ask me ("Until January 2011, the gun control program was supported at an estimated cost of $4 million.") Considering this RCMP report as one of the most reliable sources, much more so than AOL News anyhow, I believe the correct amount would be $86.5 million for 2008-09. Gunnnut (talk) 03:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Clean-up

This article needs cleaning up. I started with the lead, but before I had gone very far, two IP editors began to revert me, taking issue with certain points, despite the fact that I had barely begun.

If several editors are interested, in order to avoid edit warring, it would perhaps be a good idea to discuss the changes here. We are guided by WP policies. So my first edit was to fix the lead sentence to comply with WP:LEAD (e.g., the article title is contained in the first sentence and is in bold text). Note also that the lead is a summary of the article. The lead must therefore be based on reliable sources contained in the article. It is not a polemic and must be written in neutral language.

It seems to me overly simplistic to say that Canadian gun control politics are characterized by a struggle between American-style "right to bear arms" advocates vs. European-style "ban all guns" advocates. If you think the lead should say that, lets look at some reliable sources that support that point of view. The bit about Central Canada vs. the West, East and North doesn't make sense to me. Central Canada contains a great deal of "the North" and rural areas as well. Would you be willing to either discuss this here, or let me finish my editing and then see what needs adding or changing? Sunray (talk) 06:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sunray. Your editing seems ok now, but yesterday someone (just before you I believe) had put in a lot of non-sense, unrelated to the firearms debate in Canada. I'm guessing this is still a hot topic due to the recent elections and the looming possibility of the registry being abolished by the majority conservative gov't. Unfortunately, our debates seldom recall foundational/historical sources such as the Bill of Rights, or a "Second Amendment"

I still think however, that this is an opposition between two extremes, as it is in many other aspects of Canadian society, and this "battle" will be waged by these two groups. Although Euro-centrists have not identified themselves as such, pro-gun people often do not hesitate to say that they would like to be more like our American counterparts in these regards. The issue, in this case, is that few anti-gun people really want to identify to the United Nations and/or IANSA, for example, perhaps because they do not even know that such organisations as IANSA exist. However, none can deny that this American/European rivalry transpires in the Canadian firearms community (it is probably more present and obvious in this field than in any other) since we are stuck between both of these giants. Additionally, (and I believe Gunnnut was the original author of the previous lead) had put it in an appropriate way by simply stating that these two extremes existed, but much of the problems revolved around other issues such as registration (as opposed to licensing, as someone else pointed out).

I have been observing Gunnut's editing of this aritcle and his work is long in the coming (a few months at least, not to mention that he promised some more information with the "Violent crime, suicide,..." section) of this article. As much as I disagree with some of his statements, he has addressed some important issues in ways that many may not have observed and that we are not made aware, quite often, through interviews and televised debates. Often times, these debates pit such extremists as Wendy Cukier, Bill Blair and/or Mark Holland, to Candice Hoepnner and the likes of other conservative party members such as Stephen Harper. It is difficult to deny these two extremes in many cases. In any case, if Gunnnut is truthful about his occupation as a gunsmith and RCMP verifier, I believe we should give him a chance at telling us were he is going with his opinions, as he is clearly very knowledgeable in this field, more so than I would have thought of most Canadians.

I am very interested in this field myself, unfortunately I am not very implicated in the firearms community (probably as a result of lack of knowledge). Gunnnut's additions have made me look into it deeper and interested me and I will certainly try to become more involved in the field. His latest addition in the Classification of firearms section is most interesting and, I think, reveals severe flaws in a system that allegedly seeks public safety as it's prime intention. (although, from what I've heard, this has been highly questionable)

My problems with the article presently are:

• with your edit of the lead, Sunray, is this "fight" between "Central vs West-North-Maritimes" as I have searched this and cannot find any sources to substantiate that anyone has stated as such. Gunnnut has demonstrated (through his citation of prof. Mauser) that there is in fact a "rural vs. urban" issue at hand, and I think most people will agree with him that this is the case. (citations are also the issue with my next few objections)

• Gunnnut's European vs. American "fight," which may certainly be a figment of his imagination, but upon reflection and research, I kind of see were he is going with it. Although, like your idea Sunray, it needs further elaboration, and substantiation (if either of you could find works to cite, your claims would increase the weight of the argument by far and render them acceptable in my view)

• the second paragraph in the lead still seems quite far-fetched to me. However, in this case, many works are cited and it is hard to argue against these. If such references can be added throughout the article I believe we will be on our way to a proper narrative of the Canadian debate in regards to firearms (on that note, NUMEROUS references and links at the bottom are dead and/or no longer exist and I think we should be working on adding, replacing or retrieving these)

• Laws and regulations appears interesting at first, but it seems like a jumble of information (not sure who did this) The subsections are well divided but the last few paragraphs seem out of place. I think we could maybe divide this into different subsections of the article like Regulations for proper storage, transportation, etc; and Laws could be merged with something else. (not quite sure myself, I will have to look at the cited Criminal Code section to clarify this on my end, perhaps as a moderator you have some suggestions Sunray?)

• Classification of firearms, although seemingly comprehensive, is terribly long. Perhaps we could divide it into different sections? At this point I'm not quite sure. I think you would know best what to do with this Sunray, any suggestions?

• the Violent crime, suicide and accidents in Canada needs serious editing, as much of the statements are entirely unrelated (as was stated by Gunnnut in his promise to fix it up in the discussion just above).

• the Legal section, just below could certainly also be improved (I can try to work on this but I don't know if I will be able to make it demonstrative of the Canadian issues)

• the see also section could certainly contain more links to more appropriate/official locations such as the RCMP's CFP website and such

This is a long comment, I know, but Gunnnut (who seems very passionate about this subject) has imparted me with much interest. I will be reading up on this and will certainly be adding my two cents in the near future. I hope we can all agree on the format and information presented in this article and I think it is going to become a great work! 76.64.220.155 (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Figuring we should add an external links section to add to the see also. Gathering relevant links. 76.64.220.155 (talk) 03:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I hope you don't mind that I indented your response to set it off clearly from mine. Your point about the anti-gun control group emulating the U.S.-style "right to bear arms" approach seems apt. I will look for references on that. Mind you, the lead has to summarize what the article says (which I was attempting to do), so we would likely need a section on that issue. I'm not sure what the proportion of Canadians would be who would think in those terms. I know that there are many, but is it a majority? It strikes me that the ability to own firearms for hunting, sport, or collection has always been the norm in Canada.

The U.S. right to bear arms arose at the time of the Revolutionary War. Canada has a very different history. We also have different crime patterns, vastly lower violent crime and lower gun-related crime. This needs to be borne in mind. It seems clear to me that gun control in Canada is not about preventing people from having guns, but rather about controlling certain kinds of weapons and also certain kinds of owners (i.e., criminals and persons with mental health issues).

I agree with you that the differences in urban and rural attitudes are pronounced and I think that this needs to be further developed in the article. The other points you make about the article are worth more time than I have right now, but I will read them more carefully and comment further. I've adjusted the heading to reflect your broader view. Sunray (talk) 06:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Dubious statement

The intro includes the statement:

Despite research which demonstrates registration policies have resulted in increased crime rates in Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom...

which I've marked as dubious despite the provided ref. The publication is owned and published by The Fraser Institute, and is not a peer-reviewed journal. Frankly, it appears to be a biased source, and doesn't merit inclusion here. If the statement is to be retained, it should be modified to note that it is a view espoused by the Fraser Institute, not by peer-reviewed research. Mindmatrix 14:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

No offence, Mindmatrix, but reading your page I would have thought you were a scientific person (someone who uses the scientific method to acquire knowledge). Instead I see you editing this page without bothering to read the references/citations (which clearly stated a point to which you added a "citation needed"). Clearly, you haven't read prof. Mauser's work, and obviously have not read many other works pertaining to the subject at hand. Do you want me to ask wikipedia to review your administrator status? Your edits on this page are unbecoming of a wikipedia admin.. Do you work properly in the future cause I'll be checking you out. 76.64.220.155 (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Tell me Mindmatrix; what about all the newspaper articles and various other references that are cited both here, and in ALL the other articles on wikipedia, are they peer-reviewed? NO. Read the articles by prof. Mauser and look them up and you will find that they have been reviewed. Bring your b.s. elsewhere.76.65.40.79 (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

There are many more references that can be obtained Mindmatrix. If you want, I can fill the article with references stating what these articles already, discuss but that would simply be counter-productive.

In any case, I doubt you will find any more, peer-reviewed, works countering these, as it is very difficult to gauge what kind of effect one policy has on a particular group (in this case Canadians) of 30+ million individuals (you will see this is an important issue in the studies done about gun control when you become familiar with the topic).

Also, if you would bother reading up, you would understand that few academics want to peer-review such works because of the amplitude of the problem (world-wide in case you hadn't noticed) and the lack of specialisation in the field. Go do your homework before posting your opinion, which is clearly biased. 76.65.40.79 (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

@76.65.40.79 Please stop with the ad hominem remarks. The general rule is to stick to content, not the contributor. Mindmatrix is an experienced editor and knows WP policy with respect to use of sources. One does not have to be a subject-mater expert to be able to question a statement that seems dubious.

I agree with Mindmatrix that the statement is dubious. I've read your citations and some of them do not meet the test for a reliable source. Take, for example, the New Zealand article: "How Governments Create Crime," by Beltowski. The paper is not from a reliable source. Beltowski is a medical doctor and does not seem well versed on reading crime statistics. For example, he makes sweeping generalizations such as the statement that despite increasingly restrictive gun control laws high-profile gun-related incidents still occur and "violent crime continues to rise"

Beltowski gives examples of Ireland and Jamaica and states that the homicide rate rose steadily from the 1970s to the 2000s despite the enactment of stricter gun control legislation in the early '70s. He completely ignores other trends that influence violent crime, such as demographics (these countries both experienced a baby boom during those years, which produced a significant increase in young males in their crime producing years of 17-35), unemployment, drug trafficking, and so forth.

There is another problem with some of the wording in the lead. The statement that the Firearms Act was pronounced "a failure" by the Auditor General is unsupported by the sources you have quoted. The AG report report focused on cost overruns and reporting mechanisms, not on program effectiveness.

I am willing to work on creating a more neutral and accurate lead, but first we need to find better sources. Sunray (talk) 04:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Once again, another article that has been hijacked by wiki admins and their supposed "objectivity" The only thing going on around here is you people replacing the opinion presented in this page (which should reflect the ideas of a large number of people if we consider the inherent nature of wikipedia) with your own world view. You deny whatever has been composed here and, instead of cleaning it up and finding works that will substantiate the claims that you find more appropriate, you simply whine and complain about the article in a "civilised" manner through this discussion page because you have enough time to do that but not enough to work on the article itself. Wikipedia has become a pitiable excuse for the "transmission of knowledge" when, in fact, all it transmits are the ideas of specific schools of thought. 174.93.169.141 (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Many of the statements in the current lead are unsupportable and, as pointed out in the section above, some of the sources do not meet the requirements of WP:RS. The net result is an article that is biased towards the anti-gun control side. If other editors are willing to work together on fixing the problems that would be great. If not, it may be best to revert to an earlier version of the lead. Meanwhile, I've added an NPOV tag. Sunray (talk) 04:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Storage of non restricted firearm

This is what it says now:

Storage

Non-restricted firearms must be unloaded and:

made inoperable with a secure locking device (such as a trigger lock) have bolt(s) or bolt-carrier(s) removed securely locked in a sturdy container, cabinet or room that cannot be easily broken into except if: (1) in areas where it is legal to fire a gun, non-restricted firearms needed for predator control can temporarily be left unlocked and operable, but they must be kept unloaded and all ammunition must be stored separately, and (2) in wilderness areas, non-restricted firearms can be left unlocked and/or operable, but must be left unloaded (ammunition may be kept nearby).

To me that says I must have all of those done to have my firearm legally stored which is not necessary . It should read:

Storage

Non-restricted firearms must be unloaded and:

made inoperable with a secure locking device (such as a trigger lock) ***OR*** have bolt(s) or bolt-carrier(s) removed ***OR*** securely locked in a sturdy container, cabinet or room that cannot be easily broken into except if: (1) in areas where it is legal to fire a gun, non-restricted firearms needed for predator control can temporarily be left unlocked and operable, but they must be kept unloaded and all ammunition must be stored separately, and (2) in wilderness areas, non-restricted firearms can be left unlocked and/or operable, but must be left unloaded (ammunition may be kept nearby). Tubesteak101 (talk) 14:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

What you say makes sense, though I'm not sure why we include these quotes from the legislation. It seems to me that the article should summarize the legislation, rather than quoting it. Sunray (talk) 05:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity Sunray, are you holder of a firearms licence or do you own any firearms? 184.145.205.77 (talk) 01:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

What difference would that make in your view? Sunray (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The difference is that you know how the system works because you've went through the process. Otherwise it's like me claiming I know the truth about something I only have second hand accounts of and have not verified them to be true which, in this case, is very unscientific.

Additionally, if you have no dealings with anyone in the firearm community, where do you get your information from? I don't know how many times you've called the firearm center, but I call them on a daily basis due to my line of work. Myself, as well as many of my coworkers have noticed that the CFC employees don't know what they are talking about half the time (whether it be about firearms themselves or the laws and regulations pertaining to these). Consequently, you need to have some sort of connection to the industry or the community to know how it really works because what they tell you, and what the actual rules are, is very different for reasons no one seems to be able to explain.

The things you've added to this article in the passed few weeks have clearly demonstrated to me that you have a limited understanding of the way things work as far as the Act and other regulations go, as much as firearms themselves as far as the Canadian system goes. You can say "I know this subject" all you want but it transpires in your writing that you do not.

A good example of this is when you added something to the effect of semi-automatic firearms being "assault weapons" (assault weapons are by definition fully automatic) and this is a statement which you had clearly pulled from another wikipedia article which, in all likelihood, reflects the state of affairs in the United States; but by no means are semi-automatic firearms deemed "assault weapons" in the Canadian laws or regulations. The term "assault weapon" is usually only used by people who seek to discredit firearm owners and sportsmen and women and there is no such class, category or type in the Canadian system of firearm registration and licensing. This article is about Gun Politics in Canada, not Gun Politics in the United States, not in video games and not in movies. 174.95.28.198 (talk) 00:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Current Canadian law does not use the term "assault weapon" (which certainly does include semi-automatics); I removed the term. The Firearms Act refers to automatics and converted automatics. Please do not speculate as to what I know or do not know. Better yet, I would suggest that you stick to content and avoid getting personal. We have a long way to go before this article could be termed "neutral. And yes, I do hold a firearms licence, (not that this is a credential for editing this article). Sunray (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

"Central Canada vs. Western Canada, North Canada, and Maritimes" issue.

This statement is both highly problematic and incorrect as it is generally accepted and a well known fact that pro-gun provinces include Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and to some extent Western Ontario and Northern Québec. This also includes the three territories as enforcement of firearm laws is extremely lax and some areas have +90% non-compliance rates.

The province with the highest anti-gun sentiment is undoubtedly Québec (we can see this through the bogus legislations that are enacted every time some idiot decides to do something stupid with a firearm) but is joined by Southern British-Columbia, and Eastern Ontario.

This statement is much too general and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.113.1.122 (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Sunray (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok so why don't you remove it? 70.49.72.51 (talk) 00:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Sunray (talk) 05:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Use of word "weapon"

I find the use of the term weapon being illegitimate and used much too liberally in this article.

It is clear to me that when registered, law-abiding citizens use firearms in sport or target practice they are nothing more than firearms, they are not "weapons". The term "weapon" for a firearm implies an offensive use of the firearm (i.e.: in military or law enforcement operations, or furthermore, by criminals)

I think we should restrict the use of the word "weapon" in this article. Anything used offensively, in this case, can be described as a "weapon" (e.g.: a car, a baseball bat, a knife, a pencil,...) No one is talking about "weapons" in articles of baseball, cooking or writing. There should be some separation between these in this article as well, as it depicts lawful citizens in a negative fashion. Very unfortunate stemming from wikipedia admin.67.70.141.26 (talk) 03:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Gun is a weapon, it is designed to do harm. Comparing it to a car or pencil is unsound becouse nobody buys pencil or cars to hurt people or animals, when you are buying a weapon you have to at least take into account using it at some point and using it means shooting to someone or something becouse that`s the reason firearms was buid for. There, you have an implication you couldn`t find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.59.32.125 (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

To 193.59.32.125, your comment betrays a blatant ignorance of the subject; you are a biggot. Firearms are used by armies and military organisations to kill, yes. Civilians use them for sport. Criminals use them to perpetrate crimes. A very simple remark that you could have made after pondering about it for 2 minutes. You are obviously too stupid and too narrow-minded to even come close to understanding how wrong you are and how we are loosing freedom because of people like you. People like you deserve neither freedom, nor security. Also, you completely ignore the fact that pencils and cars can very easily be used to kill and are regularly used as such, more often even than firearms. You are an imbecile. 208.113.1.122 (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Learn to english 193.59.32.125 174.93.161.166 (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Like it or not, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that firearms are always weapons: R. v. Felawka, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 199. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.2.118 (talk) 06:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

From a purely legal standpoint the supreme court's ruling on the subject does make firearms weapons, but this is wikipedia which is not bound by the legal history of Canada. So while the existence of that supreme court ruling may be interesting to note in the article, the ruling holds no influence over the language of the article itself. The most neutral language to use would probably be to refer to firearms as... wait for it... "firearms". The original point was that "firearm" and "weapon" are not interchangeable in an encyclopedic setting, a point the subsequent discussion has done nothing to invalidate. So... um... yeah. The article should say "firearm" instead of "weapon".Nailedtooth (talk) 05:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Intro

"Despite research which demonstrates registration policies have resulted in increased crime rates in Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom,"

I am going to remove this part from the intro for several reasons which I feel I need to explain due to previous bickering.

A quote from the conclusion of the only study sourced(4th source); "The results of this study are consistent with other academic research, that most gun laws do not have any measurable effect on crime"

The 2nd source listed never merged the ideas of "registration policies have resulted in increased crime rates" they simply stated the two facts at once, which is intelligent as there are hundreds of factors confounding each other, and to claim a simple relationship would be ignorant.

The 1st source, seems to jump between pointing out incidence of gun crime, and talking about other crime rates, without ever saying that gun registration is the cause of higher crime rates.

The 3rd source, the radio clip, I did not listen to fully, yet it is clear there are two peoplewho disagree upon the statement it's sourcing, so I'd say the two people cancel out, and its not that great of a source anyways as to the significance of those speaking is.

Also, the reason I saw the sentence in the first place and checked it's sourcing is that it goes against most of the sourced information in the body of the article.

On a sidenote, to the IPs originating in Toronto and Quebec, be civil, I do hope that if you ever call someone a bigot, imbecile, or any thing else, that you would never be aloud back to edit here. 129.97.58.107 (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Restricted Class Change

Article previously stated that semi automatic firearms that fire center fire cartridges are restricted. This is true ONLY if the barrel length is less than noted. Being center fire and semi automatic does not make a firearm restricted. I deleted the line stating this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.116.152 (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Refer to section 82(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. "Restricted firearm" is defined as a firearm that: "is not a prohibited firearm, has a barrel less than 470mm in length AND is capable of discharging center-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner." This means that if your firearm EITHER does not discharge in semi-automatic fashion, OR is not center-fire, OR has a barrel of 470mm or more, your firearm is not Restricted. Your undoing had to be undone, unfortunately. Stop screwing with the article and read the damned regulations before editing; this has been a recurring issue on this page. (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-36.html link added for your convenience) 199.126.230.247 (talk) 08:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Required Registration Date

In the introductory paragraph, it states that "from 1995 until 2012, all firearms were required to be registered." This is not exactly true since an amnesty has been in place since 2006. Should we change the wording?? CanadaOlympic989 02:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The list of named makes that are prohibited/restricted weapons should be deleted

I think the need to record prohibited guns by make in this article is a borderline contravention of WP:NOTGUIDE. If interested people want to know what is prohibited by law they should get the proper information from the relevant sources of the Canadian government/police not Wikipedia. This page is not a repository for these kind of details. It should just outline what the firearms laws not be unreferenced lists. Besides unless an entire cited complete list is added (i.e. a list sanctioned by the relevant Canadian authorities), this is just people's opinions of banned weapons and a violation of WP:OR. 109.150.42.76 (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

grammar

Right in the intro 2nd para; makes no sense: "Systematic auditing and criminalization of firearm owners and sports is implemented and enforced in most of Central Canada". ['Criminalization': Noun (uncountable) The act of making a previously legal activity illegal.] I hope you can see the type inconsistency of "activity" and "owners", as well as the faulty assertion that all owners are criminals. Sadsaque (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

"Systematic auditing and criminalization of firearm owners and sports is implemented and enforced in most of Central Canada" It is obviously an opinion not a statement of verifiable facts. The articles cited are opinion pieces. In Canada only the Federal Government can change the Criminal Code and Federal law applies in every region and province of the country. There cannot be a difference in what is "Criminalized" in various parts of Canada.

I guess my hopes were too high. I suppose English can be at least as difficult as any other language. Sadsaque (talk) 22:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

"Some provinces have decided to mandate their own laws"?

The introduction suggests Quebec opted to have their own gun regulations, as though overriding the Criminal Code of Canada is an option for all provinces. It is not. Unlike the US, we aren't really a federation of mini-countries, despite formally being classified as federated. Quebec has made enough noise about separating that they've gotten some odd considerations that other provinces don't have. As they have a separate law on gun regulation, that's clearly one of those differences. I'm not sure if the intro should be reworded to reflect this or not, but the other 9 provinces probably wouldn't be able to override Canadian gun laws with their own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.217.125 (talk) 07:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Gun laws in Canada

This article seems to be 90-95% Gun laws in Canada, with the other 5-10% about recent battles over registration. The title of the article and the lead do not reflect what the article is about. Lightbreather (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Bold edit re: long, detailed list of prohibited firearms

I made a bold edit and removed the looong list of prohibited firearms with all the names named and variants spelled out. I strongly suggest that if we put any back, it be a few representative models and not the whole list, per WP:NOTEVERYTHING specifically, WP:NOTMIRROR for public domain (like laws) details.

BEFORE introductory bullet:

• Carbines, rifles and shotguns of designs commonly known as, including any variants or modified versions of them:

Plus all 800+ words (5,000+ characters) that followed

A.A. Arms AR9 semi-auto rifle and AR-9 carbine AK-47 rifle and all variants, including AK Hunter, AKM, AKM-63, AKS-56S, AKS-56S-1/2, AKS-74, AKS84S-1, AMD-65, AR Model .223, Dragunov, Galil, KKMPi69, M60, M62, M70B1, M70AB2, M76, M77B1, M78, M80, M80A, MAK90, MPiK, MPiKM, MPiKMS-72, MPiKS, PKM, PKM-DGN-60, PMKM, RPK, RPK-74, RPK-87S, Type 56, 56-1, 56-2, 56-3, 56-4, Type 68, Type 79, American Arms AKY39, AKF39, AKC47 and AKF47, MAM70WS762, Mitchell AK-22, AK-47 and Heavy Barrel AK-47, Norinco 84S, 84S AK, 56, 56-1/2/3/4, Poly Technologies Inc. AK-47/S, AKS-47/S and AKS-762, Valmet M76, M76 carbine, M78/A2, M78 LMG, M82 and M82 Bullpup, except: Valmet Hunter, Hunter Auto and M78 American 180 auto-carbine, including AM-180 and Illinois Arms Co. Model 180 auto-carbines Armalite AR-180 Sporter carbine Barrett "Light 50" Model 82A1 & Model 90 rifles Benelli M1 Super 90 and M3 Super 90 shotguns, except: M1 Super 90 (Field/Sporting Special), Montefeltro Super 90 (Standard Hunter/Left Hand/Turkey/Uplander/Slug/20 Gauge), Black Eagle (Limited Ed./Competition/Slug Gun), Super Black Eagle (Custom Slug) Beretta AR70 assault rifle Bernardelli B4 and B4/B shotguns BM 59 rifle, including: Beretta BM 59, BM 59R, BM 59GL, BM 59D, BM 59 MkE, BM 59 MkI/MkII/MkIII, BM 59 Mk Ital/Ital TA/TP/Para and BM 60CB, as well as Springfield Armory BM 59 Alpine, BM 59 Alpine Paratrooper and BM 59 Nigerian MkIV Bushmaster auto-rifle Calico M-900 rifle, including M-951, M-100 and M-105 carbines Cetme Sport auto-rifle Claridge HI-TEC C, LEC, ZLEC-9 carbines Daewoo K1, K1A1, K2, Max1, Max2, AR-100, AR-110C, MAXI-II and KC-20 rifles Demro TAC-1M and XF-7 Wasp carbines Eagle Apache carbine Encom MK-IV, MP-9 and MP-45 carbines FAMAS rifle, including MAS223, FAMAS Export, FAMAS Civil and Mitchell MAS/22 Feather AT-9 semi-auto carbine and AT-22 auto-carbine Federal XC-900, XC-220 rifles and XC-450 auto-rifle Fabrique Nationale FN FNC, FNC-11, FNC-22, FNC-33, FNC Auto and FNC Auto Paratrooper rifles, as well as FN FAL, FN 308 Model44, FAL Competition Auto, FAL Heavy Barrel 308 Match, FAL Paratrooper 308 Match 50-64 and FN 308 Model 50-63 Franchi SPAS 12, LAW 12 shotguns Franchi SPAS 15 shotgun Galil assault rifle, including AP-84, ARM, AR, SAR, 332 and Mitchell Galil/22 auto-rifle Gepard anti-materiel rifle Goncz High-Tech carbine Grendel R-31 auto-carbine Heckler & Koch G3, G3A3, G3A3ZF, G3A4, G3SG/1, G11, HK33, 33A2, 33A3, 33KA1, HK91, 91A2, 91A3, 93, 93A2, 93A3, 94, 94A2, 94A3 and PSG-1 rifles, as well as: MP5, MP5A2, MP5A3, MP5K, MP5SD, MP5SD1, MP5SD2, MP5SD3 submachine guns Iver Johnson AMAC long-range rifle and Plainfield Super Enforcer carbine J&R Eng M-68, PJK M-68 and Wilkinson Terry carbines Kimel Industries AR-9 rifle/carbine Leader Mark Series auto-rifle Maadi Griffin rifle/carbine McMillan M87, M87R rifles and M88 carbine Pauza Specialties P50 rifle and P50 carbine PE57 rifle Research Armament Industries Model 500 rifle SIG AMT, SG-550 rifles and SG-551 carbine Spectre auto-carbine Springfield Armory SAR-48, SAR-48 Bush/Heavy Barrel/Para/22 Steyr AUG rifle Striker, Striker 12 and Streetsweeper shotguns Thompson submachine gun including: Model 1921, 1927, 1928, M1, Auto-Ordnance M27A-1, M27A-1 Deluxe, M1927A-3/A-5, Commando Arms MkI, MkII, MkIII, Mk9, Mk45 Universal Enforcer Model 3000 auto-carbine and Model 3010N, 3015G, 3020TRB and 3025TCO carbines US Arms PMAI assault rifle USAS-12 auto-shotgun UZI, Mini-UZI and Model A carbines Weaver Arms Nighthawk carbine Pistols, revolvers and other handguns of designs commonly known as, including any variants or modified versions of them: AA Arms AP-9 auto-pistol and AP-9, Target AP-9 and Mini AP-9 pistols Bushmaster auto-pistol Calico M-950 auto-pistol and M-110 pistol Claridge Hi-Tec Models S, L, T, ZL-9 and ZT-9 pistols Cobray M10, M11, and RPB M10/M11/SM10/SM11 and SWD M10/M11/SM10/SM11 pistols CZ Škorpion vz. 61 auto-pistol Encom MK-IV, MP-9 and MP-45 assault pistols, including MP-9, MP-45 mini pistols Federal XP-450, XP-900 auto-pistols Goncz High-Tech long pistol Grendel P-30, P-30M, P-30L and P-31 pistols Heckler & Koch SP89 auto-pistol Ingram M10, M11 pistols Interdynamics KG-99 assault pistol Intratec Tec-9, Tec-9S, Tec-9M and Tec-9MS auto-pistols (as well as any semi-automatic variant including Tec-DC9, Tec-DC9M, Tec-9A, Tec-Scorpion, Tec-22T and Tec-22TN) Iver Johnson Enforcer Model 3000 auto-pistol Kimel Industries AP-9 pistol Leader Mark5 auto-pistol Maadi Griffin pistol OA-93 assault pistol Patriot pistol Partisan Avenger auto-pistol Spectre auto-pistol Sterling MK6 carbine Steyr SPP auto-pistol Sterling Mk7, Mk7 C4 and Mk7 C8 pistols US Arms PMAIP assault pistol UZI, Micro-UZI pistols XM231S pistol and A1, A2, A3 Flattop pistols

AFTER simple sentence summarizing the whole shebang - with a reference to the law:

• Hundreds of other firearms listed by name, including any variants or modified versions. The list includes shotguns, carbines, rifles, pistols, and submachine guns.

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Refs 1-6 above aren't to do with this article. They were floating around from previous discussions and my "reflist close" netted 'em. Lightbreather (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Holy crap! All the same long, detailed list was in the Possession and Acquisition Licence article, too. In fact, there a great deal of duplicated material between that article and this one. Lightbreather (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

What - if anything - to do with this low-quality material

I am moving this here from the article to discuss. It was - incredibly, considering the poor quality of the sources - in the lead section.

Systematic auditing of firearm owners and sports is implemented and enforced in most of Central Canada, and to a lesser extent, in Western Canada. (In most cases firearm ownership regulations vary slightly in different provinces and territories, where some provinces have decided to mandate their own laws, such as the Quebec Bill 9 course, which is mandatory for all owners of restricted firearms).

The text may or may not belong in the lead (I don't think it does), but if it goes back into the article anywhere, it needs much better sources. Lightbreather (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Concealed Carry in CAN

I was surprised that, at least by skimming, this article didn't seem to address either Open Carry or Concealed Carry of firearms for self defense. Here's a link to the section of a Wiki article re. Concealed Carry addressing the law in CAN in case any of you want to add it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry#Canada Phantom in ca (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)