This Canadian reporter, along with the great majority of his brothers and sisters, clearly is ignorant of the fact that a whole lot of civilian rifles are high-powered too.
A Chinese M-14 version:
One civilian rifle:
More here.
Update: Didn’t realize the Ruger was restricted. However this truly high-powered civilian rifle does not appear to be:
Just wondering: is there (in Media Land) such a critter as a “low-powered” rifle?
Ooooo, SDA posts some gun porn, nice.
“Some Canadians are alarmed that registered firearms users such as Styles have legal access to such weapons…” Ottawa Citizen.
To paraphrase {Yea F*ck You and the sacrifices you made for Canada, soldier, your worse than Islamist terrorists in our eyes because your white. That’s why we want to fill our countries with them and disarm you}.
These idiots go on about “sophisticated weapons” and all kinds of left wing rhetoric that they know nothing about. Grandpa’s old shotgun is far deadlier than allot of these “sophisticated weapons” in the right circumstances. Meaning real world circumstances not the fearful little dream world these nuts love cower in.
This line in the article caught my eye:
“After finishing a rotation through Afghanistan with the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery, 22-yearold Dan Styles is back in Canada, safe and sound with his young family.”
Over 10 years, a total of 157 Canadians have been killed in the war in Afghanistan. That’s an average of 15 deaths a year.
And yet, Canada averages 600 murders a years, 40 times greater.
IOW, he would be 40 times safer, moving his family back to Afghanistan.
An M14 is now an “intimidating, ultra-modern rifle”?
I own an M14. I am also an officer in the Canadian Forces; however, I do not think that should in any way influence my right to own this weapon (everyone should have the right to own this weapon if they meet the licensing requirements). This is not a light, intimidating, ultra-modern rifle. It is a heavy assault rifle. And it is certainly not modern. This weapon predates the M16. This is in sharp contrast to the Swiss Arms Black Special that we also have in my household, which is actually a light, sleek, ultra-modern rifle (the weight differential is pretty meaningful if you have to hump the weapon around at all).
I could do more damage with the M14 than the Swiss Arms simply because of the caliber differential (7.62 vs 5.56). When stuck with a five round magazine I will always take the heavier round.
It does not really matter if the weapon is a semi-automatic hunting rifle or a semi-automatic military weapon though. Why draw this pretend line? There are some civilian hunting rifles that are certainly more powerful than my M-14 and can reach out and kill someone at greater range and with greater accuracy. This military vs civilian concept is ridiculous. No one in Canada is using these weapons to commit crimes anyways (as noted in the article), so why is it an issue at all?
There must be a reason to RESTRICT our rights. We do not need to provide a JUSTIFICATION for why we should be allowed to own something. Government must provide a reason why we CANNOT possess something. And thus far no one has told me a real reason why I should not be able to own my M14.
“She cites the Beretta CX4 Storm carbine – used in the 2006 Dawson College shooting spree in Montreal, which left one dead and 19 wounded – as an example.” – Ottawa Citizen.
Which pretty much goes to show how useless that particular gun is in the hands of a lunatic! I guess she prefers the favoured methods of terrorist, using a diesel fuel/ fertilizer bomb to guarantee the deaths of hundreds.
Idiots all.
Not to mention the fact the Ruger holds twice as much ammuntion. I’m getting really tired of these do-gooders who want to ban certain firearms because they look “scary”. A 308 bullet is a 308 bullet whether it comes out of a M14 knock off or a Ruger Scout Rife.
My first choice for a guide rifle.
That should pack some punch.
Dystopian Optimist >
The difference of course is that firearms only constitute around 60% of homicides, most of which are domestic disputes and gang related. Namely ethnic gang related.
As far as domestic disputes, take the cultural enrichment of Indian bride burning. No gun required.
As far as the ethnic gangs now plaguing Canada, close the border! Gun violence was way way down before the left insisted on bringing in the worlds criminals.
The answer of course is not to penalize, criminalize, and disarm us against the mess created by the left.
Even before I opened it I knew it would be by Jeff Davis.
BTW – The Ruger Scout Rifle posted is already a “restricted weapon”.
It has a 16 1/2″ barrel, 2 inches shorter than the long existing 18 1/2″ limit as a “long arm”. It classifies the same as a handgun.
In addition Mag capacity can only be purchased as a 5 rounder.
These are still ridiculous laws, but the fact remains that they won’t change with the abolishment of the registry. That is simply Liberal fear mongering based on a lie.
Back in the day, we had a rifle range in the basement of my high-school in Ontario.
The boys were REQUIRED to train with British Enfield 303s, re-barreled to 22 caliber. The Enfield was the Premier British battle rifle of the time.
Nowadays, Ontario boys are trained to install flavored condoms, using only their lips and tongues.
I never knew, Dystopian Optimist, that Canada deployed 30 million troops to Afghanistan. (Which is what your figure of 40x more risk implies.)
In other words, your comparisons are ridiculous.
I immediately ask anybody who argues against “military grade” guns for civilians to explain what semi-automatic means. As soon as they understand that, it makes it easier to explode their misconceptions.
Dystopian Optimist-
I was one of those Ontario boys. Got my grouping first time around in the basement of our High School. Those were the days. (sigh)
A “scary” assault type weapon is generally not much different from any other semi auto type of rifle, except for the “scary” pistol grip, larger capacity magazine and maybe a plastic stock and fore arm rather than wood. Doesn’t shoot much different, although many will argue that the assault type are usually less accurate that traditional designs. As long as the barrel length stays over 18″ then so what. My personal favorite would be a heavy barrel short action Sako in .223 caliber. Deadly accurate on varmints out to 300 meters +. Never had much use for military style rifles but doesn’t mean that other LAW ABIDIDING citizens shouldn’t.
Ahh a trip down memory lane . . . FN C1 A1 C823912.
7.62mm . . . great round for chopping down trees.
VancouverGuy >
Quite true – I forwent a nice m14 years ago in favour of a synthetic stocked Browning BAR .308 Winchester. Scoped it’s a fantastic hunting rifle far superior for the purpose than a non customized m14 would have been.
That said if I ever imagined I would be rolling around in the mud, trying to fight my way through a Chinese battalion I suppose I’d wish it was an original m14 with iron sites instead (easier to field strip and clean). I’ll leave the delusional fantasies for the left to live in.
They would obviously rather pack Canada full of criminal ethnic gangs to sell drugs to their kids and kill them with unregistered black market guns, while they wait for the police to eventually arrive to clean up the aftermath.
To Dick: I shot my first rifle in the basement of the Laird Gym in Regina while taking a firearms safety course in Boy Scouts circa 1967.
Things were sure a lot simpler back then.
Gun grabbers would likely have a bit more credibility if they actually knew what they were talking about.
I’ve got a good old Lee Enfield, made in 1914, that is just as powerful, and likely more accurate, than that Ruger. But the Enfield has a wood stock, so it’s not near as dangerous!
You guys do the best gun threads 🙂
I love the M14 quote:
“The M14, along with a range of much more modern rifles of military origin, is entirely legal to own in Canada, even if you’re not in the military.”
Most of the homes in the town I grew up in had a shotgun and an Enfield (or some variant).
Reporters are idiots.
I remember (maybe even accuratly!) when C-95 first came out, that there was a classification system involved to determine if a rifle was restricted or not. One of the things on the list, was a bayonet lug. Really! Those Jane-Finch bayonettings are really getting out of hand!
Don’t just stand there, ban something !
a few points
1. notice the blurring of the category assault rifle, by definition an assault rifle is a carbine (mid powered cartridge) that is capable of automatic or semi-automatic fire. All such guns are currently banned in Canada.
2. military style, military origin is a massive and very slippery category. Some examples are the horrific 75 cal. Brown Bess and the very decidedly mid power rifle the Lee Enfield
3. almost all gun crime in Canada is being done with unregistered firearms
“Some Canadians are alarmed that registered firearms users such as Styles have legal access to such weapons…”
This is what’s called a “weasel phrase”. Some Canadians are alarmed that the world is going to end in 2012. Personally, I’m alarmed that they keep incrementally disarming the populace.
Knight 99,
As a forward observation officer, I will hopefully never be slogging my way through a Chinese battalion on the ground. The way I see it, if I ever have to use my rifle in battle then it is highly likely that we have lost. Given that, in service I’m happy enough to carry a C7 instead, because increased stopping power probably is not worth the weight. If I was an infanteer though I would definitely argue for bringing back the C1 or using an M14 🙂
I remember the days when if a gun was needed for a school play you took your dads on the school bus, bare not in a case.
Years ago we used to lock up crazy people so our streets were relatively secure. Nowadays the crazy people live on the streets creating or living as victims.
OMG!! An ELEPHANT GUN!? Why in the WORLD would anybody NEED a SAFARI GUN!?
Oh, maybe if some mook decides to let loose his collection of lions, tigers, giraffes, bears, etc.
VancouverGuy @ 2:44:
It’s not your guns that upset them. It’s you. The very thought of you. And your ilk. You own guns, and probably use them. To kill. You are therefore likely an oppressor of other sorts, too. A killer; an oppressor; therefore you are “white”, whatever your skin color. You are the wrong sort of person for the new and improved Canada, home to all things “marginalized”. There is no room for you here. You are to be removed. Since you are too “white” to go quietly, you will be coerced, by the law, by re-training. They may wait ’til you die, but don’t try their patience. You will be replaced by the right sort of people now being manufactured in our schools and universities.
The children are our future. That’s why I’m stocking up on concertina wire and land mines.
Doug wrote: “My first choice for a guide rifle. That should pack some punch.”
I guess I’m a little more old school than you Doug…
The reporter is simply an idiot. I own one of the chicom M14’s and it’s a very nice gun to shoot. It’s heavy, but lighter than my M1 Garand which, even despite the weight, is my preferred rifle to carry in the bush when I worry about bears being around. Lighter is not better as my wife has a Tika chambered in 30-06 and the recoil is just too much for her although she covets my M14.
This article has pissed me off so much that I might just go out and buy another gun this week.
Not one word about the massive waste of money thanks to the long gun control farce, or that
“Wendy’s” crowd was mainly downtown TO astroturf, or that a certain PM was pandering for
votes and support so desperately among Trawnta’s leftist elites.
Knight99 – sorry to correct you, but the Canadian version of the Ruger has an 18″ barrel and thus is non-restricted. Also, it comes with a 10 round magazine because the 5 round limit only applies to semi-auto centre-fire rifles.
The Chinese M14 rifle is a beautiful shooter despite the low price. Works fine on deer though a little heavy!
DOUG: My new favourite is my Marlin 1895SBL. It just lost its virginity when I took a bull moose on Friday east of Parry Sound in ONT.
I’m on board with most here: you don’t categorize firearms based on how they look. That’s asinine.
This article confirms both the incompetency and corruption of the Main Stream Media. Why else would someone like this guy ever get hired to write for them.
After 20 years of restrictive gun control (C-17 1991,C-68 C-68 1995), a $2 Billion boondoggle, the rise of organized crime, home invasions becoming commonplace, citizens prosecuted and/or jailed for defending themselves, their families and their property, and increases in wild animal attacks and increased collisions with large wildlife, years of police raids on paper criminals and seizure of their property, who trusts the Chiefs of Police?
Who benefits from their insatiable lust for power and money?
“We stand on guard for thee.” is a citizens motto. Agents of the State who disagree with it’s sentiment should not be allowed to sing those words in public.
That Ruger Gunsite is available here: http://www.frontierfirearms.ca/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=17_18_72&products_id=5099
Also, I must correct myself as it has an 18.5″ barrel, not an 18″, because you all know, the extra 1/2″ makes it safe to be unrestricted.
Think of the children!
Bruce: Since when is .303 “mid-powered”? It’s more powerful than .308 or .30-06.
Sure, compared to the shoulder-bruising 8mm Mauser, it’s a little lighter, but it’s solidly in the “full power” camp by all normal uses.
The Journalist’s Guide to Firearm Identification:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_6jCh-5qXO6s/S7s2JRsIytI/AAAAAAAABEY/vlv8eU8N1XU/s1600/journalist_guns_2.jpg
When the US banned so-called assault rifles, the criteria of what defined one was purely cosmetic. On one TV program, a gunsmith demonstrated how he could convert a completely legal hunting rifle into an illegal assault rifle in under a minute without altering its rate of fire or other functions. The “ban” grandfathered existing weapons, so it only banned future purchases and made the older weapons more valuable.
The same thing happened with the high capacity magazine ban. Older magazines tripled in price, and manufacturers created a whole new class of big bore semi autos that were concealable now. It also reinvigorated the revolver market which had almost died.
The bottom line is that these anti gun nuts wouldn’t know an assault rifle if they were clubbed unconscious with one.
banning an object based purely on appearance is a symptom of a mental disorder.
Another guy here who shot targets with the old converted Lee Enfields in an Alberta school basement. And walked or biked out of town with his buddies fairly regularly to shoot gophers. No one thought anything of it.
Lots of good sense from commenters here. Ms. Cukier on the other hand is being coy if she’s quoted accurately. Her real position is that no Canadian aside from a cop or Military member on duty should be allowed to own or use any kind of firearm at any time.
The Ruger Scout pictured in the article is the American version and is not available in Canada.
The Canadian version has a longer barrel and no flash hider.
It is NOT restricted.
I know because I just bought one 🙂
We have to fight any changes to make the rules more restrictive tooth and nail or we are all screwed. I did own several weapons that where banned last time around. I got out of fire arms for a long time and only started shhooting and hunting a gain a few years ago. I now own a Remington 700, which is just a basic bolt action hunting rifle in .308 Win. But mine is the XCR Tactical. Its a nice rifle with a free floating heavy barrel, an adjustable trigger and an aluminum bedded action. The thing that makes it “tactical” is the green MacMillan stock. In terms of “power” or function it is no different that any other Remington 700, but the gun grabbers want to ban it because it is green and says tactical on the side. That converts it into a “hight power sniper rifle”. This is the rifle I hunt dear and moose with. Its a bit heavy and the barrel is a bit long, but I like it. My friends Marlin model 94 carbine in .44 magnum would be a lot more useful if I was a criminal, but its not green and doesn’t have the word “tactical” stamped in the side.
I don’t think these people are as stupid as they act, they couldn’t be. So there is no point trying to educate them or turn them using logic. Slam them avery time you get a chance, because their agenda is pure evil.
(everyone should have the right to own this weapon if they meet the licensing requirements). VancouverGuy
I agree with everything that VanGuy said but the above. Its like the registry itself A HUGE HUGE infringement on my right to defend myself, go license yourself!
The reporter is being assinine…
If there were RPG(rocket propelled grenades) or mortars among the general population then the comment about ‘military origin’ may have made some sense.
The ‘scary military guns’ rubbish is just a bunch of pre-Halloween harum scarum which fits their ideological bent.
Next thing these pablum servers will tell you is that they are allowing psychotics off their meds to have guns.
Run, run for your very lives….!
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
Sigivald said: “Sure, compared to the shoulder-bruising 8mm Mauser, it’s a little lighter, but it’s solidly in the “full power” camp by all normal uses.”
As it happens, the 8mm Schnauser is my fave. In a decent rifle it doesn’t kick any different than the .303, .308 or .30-06 as far as I can tell. Hardest kicking thing I ever owned was a Winchester 94 in .30-30, kinda harsh IMHO.
All these “battle” rifle rounds are considered mid-power. You don’t call them “high powered” until you start talking .300 Win Mag, .338 Lapua,.50 BMG etc. Then there’s your dangerous game double rifles, .460 Rigby, .500, .600, .700 nitro express, and of course the .577 TRex of YouTube fame.
Its been my experience dealing with reporters that where firearms are concerned they have no interest in getting it right. The boilerplate for these gun stories was laid down in the 1960’s, and it hasn’t changed since.
News media in the West is fully committed to the complete prohibition of firearms, has been for nearly 50 years, and will not be changed by anything short of utter bankruptcy or a revolution. Possibly both. If its in the paper or on TV, its propaganda. That’s how it works.
This is pretty mild, really. Its as if they’ve given up and are just going through the motions.
Yay!
Bruce: Since when is .303 “mid-powered”? It’s more powerful than .308 or .30-06.
Simply incorrect. The .308 and .30-06 are comparable although the .308 round is smaller.
The .303 round is similar in size to the .308 but is less powerful as it was originally designed for black powder. It could be loaded up to .308 power at the risk of popping a few eyeballs and amputating a few fingers.
Most people who are against guns and gun ownership are demonstrably ignorant of what guns and gun owners actually do.
The rest are people who just hate individual freedom and need to control others through coercion.
They all resort to lies and fear mongering to get their way.
Know your enemies people.
Yup, news to me. The .303 is about on par with those cheap Chinese 6.5 SKS rifles. The .270, 30-06, .280 Rem are all the from the same family and generally perform approximately the same. I realized that’s a bit of an over generalization. BUT for all intents and purposes the differences in ballistics are so minimal that they only present good excuses for poor marksmanship.
BJG has it right @ 5:33.
FREE,
Despite being a serving member in the Army (I’m happy to say the Army now, rather than the CF; quite nice), I went and took my course to get licensed rather than challenging the course.
I took it privately with two other people whom I did not know. They “passed” the course from a weapons handling standpoint; however, I would fear for my life if I saw them on the range. In the course there is a practical section where they ask you how to cross a barrier with a weapon. The other guy on my course handed his friend the loaded shotgun, barrel first (directed at his friend) and then stepped over the barrier. They both still passed the course. In the written section, one of them failed miserably, but the individual administering the test just asked him the questions again and then passed him.
So long as the licensing requirements are reasonable, I do not have an issue with licensing. In fact, I would be happier to the extent people had to pass a legitimate weapons handling test. So long as the licensing requirements are not abused, I do not mind government imposing some standards to keep me from being shot accidentally on the range or out in the woods. Generally I do not trust government not to abuse licensing requirements, but at the moment they seem extremely lax.
“Unload your weapon.” Guy cocks the weapon. Guy takes the magazine off. Guy says weapon is unloaded. I shake my head as he passes the course.
Generally, if the government is looking to ban something, then that’s all the more reason to get it.