More than a million restricted, prohibited guns in Canada

Some interesting numbers..

Quote:

---

The number of restricted firearms in Canada rose 5.5 per cent last year, reaching its highest point in more than a decade, according to the annual report from the RCMP's commissioner of firearms. There are now 839,295 restricted firearms, many of them handguns.

The number of prohibited firearms in Canada, such as fully automatic guns, edged up 0.5 per cent to 183,333

According to the report, the biggest increases in the number of restricted guns occurred in Newfoundland and Labrador (10.4 per cent), the Northwest Territories (10.4 per cent), Saskatchewan (9.3 per cent), Yukon (8.9 per cent) and Nova Scotia (8.8 per cent).

The highest increases were in the Yukon where the number of prohibited firearms rose 6.5 per cent to 378, followed by British Columbia where they rose 4.9 per cent to 27,153. Saskatchewan was up 3.6 per cent to 7,969, while Alberta rose 3.2 per cent 25,261.

The only provinces where the number of prohibited guns dropped were Ontario and Quebec — the two provinces that had the highest numbers of prohibited firearms to start with. Ontario dropped two per cent to 75,342, while Quebec declined 0.5 per cent to 28,135.

The number of Canadians licensed to possess and acquire firearms rose in 2016, to 2.07 million from 2.02 million.

---

Read More: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/guns...nada-1.4129994

with the Snowflake rational it is a miracle we haven't exterminated ourselves with those amounts of firearms

Here's more drivel from the CBC. Sometimes,I wonder if the government doesn't ask them to run crap like this to gauge public opinion from the comments. The comments posted were quite encouraging,though. It seems more and more people aren't buying into the "chicken little" fear-mongering BS from Wendy Cukier et al and that's a very good thing. Liberal Party and Justin Trudeau have a serious credibility issue. Adding more gun control gasoline on the fire won't be a good thing for them and I think they're beginning to get the message.

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:

---

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.

---

Maybe by the RCMP reclassifying previously non restricted firearms as prohibited.

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.

---

Not to sound morbid, but the age of the people that are old enough to have had firearms that where classified as Prohibs under the FAC and then the PAL/RPAL system are now up there in years. There is going to be a lot more inheriting for awhile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snowwalker

Not to sound morbid, but the age of the people that are old enough to have had firearms that where classified as Prohibs under the FAC and then the PAL/RPAL system are now up there in years. There is going to be a lot more inheriting for awhile.

---

I had breakfast with a fella just the other day, he's 75 and was telling me about his latest purchase of a 9mm from B.C. and how smooth the whole transaction went. Then we had a heartfelt conversation about none of his boys having any interest in firearms or his collection. He's not sure what will happen to all his prohib/restricted guns as most of his fellow collectors have died or are in nursing homes.

I plan to leave at least one prohib to each of my children and grandchildren.....

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?

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.

---

Prohibs can still be registered. Some turn up now and again.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

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 am actually scared at times by the safety training that officers/military receive, not that the PAL course actually teaches anything about true real life safety but I have been swept by more than a few retired LEOs and retired Military personal who claim the gun is unloaded.

I do not feel that we need to be armed at all times and in London what would the people on the bridge have done, once the vehicle was hitting people there was no way to react and take out the driver. The people stabbing others, what are the chances that some bystander shoots just the attacker and not a pedestrian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fox

but I have been swept by more than a few retired LEOs and retired Military personal who claim the gun is unloaded.

---

Funny, they used make soldiers do punishing laps for hours or pushups till you'd drop blubbering into pool of sweat for not unloading your rifle properly. You didn't dare waver off the trained procedures for fear of the consequences...figured that stuck with you for life :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikePal

Funny, they used make soldiers do punishing laps for hours or pushups till you'd drop blubbering into pool of sweat for not unloading your rifle properly. You didn't dare waver off the trained procedures for fear of the consequences...figured that stuck with you for life :)

---

I just know what I have experienced, was told never to check a barrel unless I was fully disassembling but finger off the trigger was swept by a few others, not fun at all.

Still not as bad as grandpa but still not good.

Safety is something that happens between your ears, not something you hold in your hands.

I believe Jeff Cooper said that.

I wouldn't want to live in a metropolitan city where pizza arrives faster than an armed cop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skypilot

I wouldn't want to live in a metropolitan city where pizza arrives faster than an armed cop.

---

Perfect!! Do you mind if I use that? :thumbup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

Perfect!! Do you mind if I use that? :thumbup:

---

Be my guest, seems I saw it on a sign once upon a time so it's not original.

Golly lee you guys are so smart, that,s the solution we need to arm the pizza delivery guys.LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

Golly lee you guys are so smart, that,s the solution we need to arm the pizza delivery guys.LOL

---

No but maybe we should demand that the pizza delivery guy brings an armed cop with him(to improve police response time)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skypilot

No but maybe we should demand that the pizza delivery guy brings an armed cop with him(to improve police response time)

---

If the pizza delivery guy also delivered for Timmies,that would be a slam dunk (pun intended) LOL

True Trimmer. I am 110% against any cop in uniform being without a firearm.

My son works at HQ in TO and I stress to him the stupidity of being unarmed and in uniform but the Brit influence is strong at HQ. Pugash I assume.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 410001661

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.

---

Just a little interesting fact. The Ontario CFO's office is behind 1600 restricted transfers. 2 months ago they were processing 1200/week. They have people working Saturdays trying to catch up. Business transfers are taking 2 weeks +. Of course in Alberta it's 2 days tops. TC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skypilot

True Trimmer. I am 110% against any cop in uniform being without a firearm.

My son works at HQ in TO and I stress to him the stupidity of being unarmed and in uniform but the Brit influence is strong at HQ. Pugash I assume.

---

Actually,it's worse than that and has been for a very long time. Many years ago before I left the job for the private sector,there was a concerted effort to remove as many firearms from the system as could be safely done without a shyte storm from Health &Safety division of the Association. PC's working station duty,special assignment officers not working on the road and even forensic staff were strongly urged not to carry unless absolutely necessary. This was during the regime of the Peterson Liberals and the Rae NDP,stopping short of issuing orders outright. Also at that time,there was an effort to arm Auxilliary Police Constables that almost caused a war inside upper command with Field Support Services division. They were afraid they'd get fired for even asking the question. Auxilliary Officers work unarmed except for special details and only under extraordinary circumstances,to this day and on the road,to boot. To me,that's just nuts. Needless to say,anti-gun agenda runs deep with leftist governments.

Our Reserves are undetectable from the Regulars. Same uniform, firearm, cars etc. They go to the Academy and do exactly the same job as Patrol, WRT court, working wrecks, arrests, transport, etc.

We've had at least 2 cases back home where individuals were unarmed and in uniform and were killed.

One was a Park Ranger stopping to help what he thought was a stranded motorist inside a Park. He had no idea of the ongoing crime spree nor did the perp know that the Ranger was an unarmed Park Ranger, per his statement. He simply saw a uniform and immediately thought "cop" and murdered him in order to prolong his flight.

In this day and age it is ridiculous to be in uniform and unarmed.

Remember the fiasco over suggesting the CFs not wear their uniform in public because of the threat of attack?

What numb scull would run a government with a graduated threat level and yet have the very people that are expected to "protect," be in uniform AND unarmed and likely targeted also?
I home the UK comes to its senses soon.