Take on automatic weapons
Automatic weapons should all be banned. I am completely against this proposal to ban semi-automatic weapons. These are the weapons most used by waterfowl hunters. And also to a lesser extent by big game hunters. So by banning them, you are directly attacking a group of hunters that has nothing to do with the killings. Instead, I suggest that you name assault weapons that have nothing to do with hunting, and in addition prohibit any system that contains more than five cartridges in total in the weapon. Why not ban all night vision equipment at the same time? Almost all of the mass killings have been done with high ammo capacity weapons.
Michael Charlebois
Do not penalize waterfowl hunting
Mr. Langlois’ suggestion to use the firing mechanism as a prohibition criterion is a very bad idea. This approach would effectively banish the very popular three-shot semi-automatic shotguns used for waterfowl hunting. Until now, the government had been content to target assault weapons or weapons inspired by the design of assault weapons, targeting in particular high-capacity magazines as a criterion for prohibition. Many novice hunters own such assault weapons because they find it cool, but real hunters who are knowledgeable and knowledgeable about weapons don’t hunt with assault weapons. Mr. Langlois’ suggestion [l’élargissement de la définition d’arme prohibée à toutes les armes semi-automatiques] would only make things worse by confusing weapons to play Rambo [les armes d’assaut] with real hunting weapons.
John Bernier
And the ammunition?
Categorizing long guns by mechanism type is a great idea. On the other hand, it should also categorize the type of ammunition, namely the bullet or the cartridge which defines the weapon as being a rifle or a shotgun. The semi-automatic rifle [comme celui que Carey Price a sur la photo récemment publiée] is an effective weapon for bird hunting, but has rarely been used in kills, as its lethal capacity is very low compared to an assault type rifle. On the other hand, a semi-automatic hunting rifle can be as dangerous as an assault weapon and should, by that very fact, be prohibited. Moreover, the majority of semi-automatic rifles are sorely lacking in precision, especially at long range and, therefore, this makes them a mediocre weapon for hunting. In summary, in addition to handguns, any rifle with a semi-automatic mechanism should henceforth be prohibited. Unlike our American neighbours, this has already been in force in Europe for several years.
Gilles Dube
Switzerland, a model
Finally someone who explains the mechanism of a weapon. Indeed, a shotgun is not an assault rifle. A little skill would be nice. As in many cases, including that of weapons, why not compare ourselves to Switzerland? A country that holds a lot, yet without problems. I think our governments are going a little far in their control. A little common sense, please.
Dominique Froment
Aim for the individual, not the weapon
If someone suggested you categorize digital cameras to combat child pornography, what would you think? It probably doesn’t make sense! Well ! it’s the same thing for a firearm. Whether we are talking about a 1 megapixel camera or a 1 shot rifle, they are equally dangerous against a defenseless victim. Like the violence in our cities, the problem is the individual and not the object he uses to commit his crime.
Michael Trahan
For the soldiers
You only partially touch the problem by focusing on the reload action mechanism [semi-automatique ou manuel]. The other part, equally important, concerns the characteristics of the weapon and which the firearms lobby wants us to take for cosmetics, ridiculing all the anti-combat weapons or so-called assault weapons. These are the weapons that have the following characteristics: the ease of transporting them out of sight [le fait qu’elle soit courte, démontable, crosse repliable]the pistol grip design to facilitate its use in a combat situation [ou d’engagement armé avec un adversaire], the elevated scope ramp layout that makes aiming at a moving target easier while keeping your eye in the sight, and its light weight that allows for longer handling of the weapon in combat situations by minimizing shooter fatigue. All of these qualities are the culmination of years of research by military weapon manufacturers with the aim of producing high performance weapons in combat or assault. Hunters don’t need these traits at all. So, to your definition, the addition of this one should be enough to legislate, by adding all the weapons already prohibited, in order to reduce the damage when sick or violent people decide to carry out a mass killing. I can already hear the pro-weapons ripping their shirts off when we talk about these “assault weapons” which have no place in a civilized society. They should pay more attention to the sound of the flesh being torn apart by the ammunition fired by these assault weapons too often used to facilitate mass killings, when they should only be in the hands of the police and the soldiers.
Claude Miron, Magog