Owning a handgun.

[twostroke]

thanks for the insight.........I have small mitts so I like the look and size of the walther p22...........but yes i have also considered the gsg 1911 as well as looked at chiappa 1911 for price reasons as well

would a walthers p22 be a good target shooting pistol at the range for a first timer.....I have read good reviews and that this style also prepares you for moving up to larger caliber pistols such as 9mm or 45.

All three of the guns you have listed here are great pistols. I've fired all three, and they're reliable as ever. That said, don't overlook the GSG 1911 either. If you're really stuck between those three though, go to a gun shop, and handle all three. Pick the one that feels best, as with any firearm.

As for creating your own range, and getting it approved, good luck!

-Nick

[Hunter John]

Out of curiosity after Goosesniper's post I went and did some searching. There is no explicit law that states you can't shoot anywhere, it is more that you 'have' to shoot at a club or approved range.
Anyway that is just another example of a poorly written law that is vague and leaves it open to interpretation.
Have a read of this article, it is Canadian and basically summarizes that gun control has had no impact on gun related homocides. Go figure!



http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/27/12/2303.full.pdf+html

The CFO makes up "policy" and then claims it is law.you are correct in saying that there is no law..Its policy made up by unelected government officials.

[DGearyFTE]

The only way there is going to be a change in gun laws is for Canadian gun owners to lobby hard based on the reality of what gun control does. In simple terms it costs tax payers huge amounts of money and provides no added value. Unfortunately it is an easy target for politicians to focus on because it has the perception that they are doing 'something'. It does not matter that 'something' has no value it matters if people think 'something' is good.
I don't have a compelling desire for a handgun because the law effectively makes owning one a real chore. At the time I would really want one (i.e. hunting dangerous game like bear and having a large bore pistol as a back up) I am denied it.
I read some months ago the story of the extreme hiker in Quebec that nearly died after a bear destroyed his tent and supplies. Seems to me that a .357 Magnum would have been real handy. There are many bear attacks on hikers and other persons (black bear attacks are on the rise BTW) across the country that make owning and carrying a handgun a good idea.
I am surprised they haven't banned flare pistols and I agree with the statement that a rifle present a much greater danger at greater range.
Just too many Hollywood movies show people shooting pistols accurately. Getting the Clint Eastwood like accuracy with a pistol takes lots of practice. Good thing cause most criminals are horrible shooters...

[line052]

IS a Black Powder pistol legal in Canada with a rifle licence?

Never Mind, answered

[Hunter John]

IS a Black Powder pistol legal in Canada with a rifle licence?

No. unless it is classified as an antique. so any modern flintlock or percussion pistol is restricted.

[Gaoler]

Why am I finding so many 40cal, 9MM, 44Mag and 45ACP on crown land then?????

Scary or cops....

There are many pistol cal. carbines that are non-restricted...

[welsh]

The main reason I don't own handguns is that I see no point in owning something I would only use at the range, from time to time. The ATT system is a bit of a mess that unfortunately applies a one-size-fits-all solution across the country: the (apparent) goal of removing loopholes that might let people carry guns around for no good reason also prevents people such as trappers from carrying guns for valid reasons.

That said....

Have a read of this article, it is Canadian and basically summarizes that gun control has had no impact on gun related homocides. Go figure!

http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/27/12/2303.full.pdf+html

Well, it doesn't really say that, because that would be claiming to have proven the null hypothesis. What it actually says is that multiple regression analysis using Langmann's models was unable to detect any effects on firearms homicides.

Langmann's result is unsurprising for two reasons: first, because there is already a long-term trend of declining crime, and second, because multiple regression is a questionable method of getting at problems where the variables are poorly understood.

This sounds like nitpicking but there is an important difference between saying the North Pole doesn't exist and saying that you couldn't find it using a metal detector. All that you've really established is that metal detectors can't find the North Pole, or that you were looking in the wrong place.

[DGearyFTE]

Welsh,
Don't disagree. No doubt there are a bunch of other analyses out there that state just the opposite. It would be more fair to state that the current trend indicated by his study is that there is no direct evidence that links one to the other.
You and I both agree that owning a handgun comes with too much baggage. I have a friend who has plenty so any time I feel the need I can just go to the range with him.
I would contend that it all comes to some simple goals based on hard evidence. Unfortunately most crimes using handguns are committed by young men in large urban areas. The small percentage otherwise is unfortunately outside of the control of any law. The problem is really that we have too little crime with handguns that each time it does happen it is played out with great sensation in the media. The majority of people don't own guns and therefore think they are bad instead of seeing the core issue of crime, gangs and where the majority of the problem lies.
If we were to apply the same logic of how horrifying something is to auto accidents we would all be walking. But, in our society, we have come to accept that accidents happen and it is a risk we are willing to take. Funny how if you look at the numbers for automobile deaths vs handgun deaths it makes you wonder why anyone gives it a second thought and why does it become such a political lightning rod.

[Hunter John]

Great post DGeary. Having a restricted liscence and handgun ownership doe have some baggage involved but once u jump through some hoops(not many really) it is an enjoyable hobby. The only gauranteed stipulation to shoot restricted is belonging to a range,while I know that is a turn off or unaffordable for some but still worthwile imho.

[Pat32rf]

While the Walther P22 is a nice plinking pistol, it is not nearly the target gun that an old Ruger Mark 1 is going to be.
Up here the OPP did a lot of their SWAT team shooting at an old mine site. There was a local girl who always beat me to the brass but it was still a thrill to hear the full autos cut loose.
Could be different now as that was ten years and two commanding officers ago....and my buddy who lived 1/4 mile from the site has moved on.
While you do need your RPAL, you don't need to belong to a range to buy handguns. You can do so as a collector. The biggest problem is that you will probably need to get your storage facility inspected. If you have a gun safe this should not pose a problem, at least up here.