More than a million restricted, prohibited guns in Canada

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blasted_saber

Its incredibly irritating that the CBC is making it seem like "tightening firearms laws" has anything to do with legally owned restricted/prohibited firearms.

Are they being intentionally misleading or is the author just plain stupid?

---

My guess is BOTH.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

What I can't figure out is how the number of Prohibs went up. Especially when you can only get a license by inheriting it.

---

Quote:

---

Tony Bernardo, executive director of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, said one of the reasons for an increase in prohibited guns is movie companies using the firearms in films being shot in Canada.

"Police, military and movie companies are the only ones allowed to bring in a prohibited firearm," he said.

---

I guess the film industry is booming.

The same article states that there is an increase of new shooters into the sport +/- 50,000/year. That will make putting in a gun registry very sticky business.

A few more terrorists attacks like those on the London Bridge and carry concealed might become the norm in Canada. Lets face it the Police and Military and intelligence agencies in Britain do not have the capacity to stop these attacks and I personally don,t want to be fending off
armed terrorists while armed with a skate board (as happened in London).

Ok who are you and what did you do with Gilroy?��

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

A few more terrorists attacks like those on the London Bridge and carry concealed might become the norm in Canada. Lets face it the Police and Military and intelligence agencies in Britain do not have the capacity to stop these attacks and I personally don,t want to be fending off
armed terrorists while armed with a skate board (as happened in London).

---

∆∆∆∆∆. Hilarious ∆∆∆∆∆

Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk

Guns are somewhat like oxygen, not something one thinks much about until you are the one that immediately and desperately needs it.
It would be interesting to know just how many people would likely have been spared IF only the initial Policeman had been armed.

Odd how the reality of a significant emotional event suddenly brings clarity and improves one's eyesight. And on several obvious things now, even to PM May.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

Ok who are you and what did you do with Gilroy?��

---

LOL You know full well that I have supported CC on here on numerous posts, the only other condition apart from the PAL training would be a little more range time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skypilot

Guns are somewhat like oxygen, not something one thinks much about until you are the one that immediately and desperately needs it.
It would be interesting to know just how many people would likely have been spared IF only the initial Policeman had been armed.

Odd how the reality of a significant emotional event suddenly brings clarity and improves one's eyesight. And on several obvious things now, even to PM May.

---

I think the response time was 8 minutes, in reality most every police officer in London is armed and they have been for a long time.Had there been ANY unarmed police officers they surely would have engaged these terrorists in any event.

A good short term solution in England would be to swear in retired military as a unpaid militia and arm them.I would say also retired police but most of them would not have had the firearms training except those who retired in more recent years.

We also have to remember how much damage would have been caused if these terrorists were armed with assault rifles.

I should have clarified the term "armed" as meaning with a firearm.

The one initial cop that did respond, did so with his baton, although he did suffer injuries and unfortunately it didn't stop them.

I just hope the street cops there become better armed. Armed cops in BMWs 8 minutes away aren't an acceptable response to mass murder attacks that started 8 minutes ago.