Crossbow killing

[JBen]

And criminals can fashion Zip guns, etc etc.

You could fashion a crude bow. I wonder what the draw weight would be and how accurate it would be. You could also fashion a crude spear. Or simply use a baseball bat.

You could alsobe a convicted career criminal with weapon bans. You could be a stalker with peace bonds against you, or very disgruntled ex whose guns have been taken for and with good reasons.

And walk into a bass pro, and walk out with a cross bow, with a scope that's capable of pin point accuracy at 50 yards with enough effiecency to kill a Moose at those ranges.

Do "you" (not you specifically) agree with the PAL and reasons for it? And if so, what arguement is there against needing our PALs to buy bows.

not saying it should be done. It's worth considering. for all we talk about back ground checks, criminals or the unstable being the problem......would be fairly discrediting to our arguements "IF" it's proposed and we put up stiff resistance. Aka we talk the talk, but don't want to walk it.

[MikePal]

I guess we will start having to create Chainsaw license and register them...I've seen way to many movies where they were used to maim, mutilate and kill..and not for what they were designed for...

[JBen]

Silly rebuttal.

chainsaws while brutal if used. Aren't designed to kill, I'm pretty sure more people are strangled with bare hands, than have been killed by chainsaws. Nor are they capable of ranged attacks. By all means try to kill a bear/moose/Wt with one. Let us know how you make out.

fact is.
many towns rightfully or wrongly ( no need to discuss this) do consider bows firearms. And there are no discharge by laws. pellet guns, in excess of 500 fpS with less killing force/capability than a x-bow require a PAL. How many people hunt big game with pellet guns......

So the question has merit. If we as gun owners agree or argue that keeping firearms out of the hands of icriminals and the unstable is not only a good idea, that's the biggest problem....That the PAL is a good idea because it helps address those specific problems.......

[Gun Nut]

Firearms ...yes, however crossbows are not firearms. You say the bow in question should have been trigger locked and bolts stored away from the bow, that is not required, nor is a licence to buy or own. Where do you suggest the government stop? Crossbows, then what....long bows, compound bows? Then what, hunting knives, then heck while they are at it, kitchen knives!!! Knives are used as weapons now, more than firearms after all ! Handguns have been registered since 1934....has that stopped the criminal use of handguns?

Actually I was being a bit facetious, parroting the rule for crossbows and bolts, that are suppose to keep long-guns out of the hands of those who would misused them. As for crossbows under federal law they are not as yet considered to be firearm under the Firearms Act. This it seems is what everyone worries about might come to pass. This would mean taking the same safety precautions with crossbows as we now do with long-guns. For the record I put a trigger lock on my crossbow. Provincially you see crossbows are considered firearms, check the definition of firearms in your hunting regulation, which summarize the Wildlife Fish and Game Act. In my case I have to live with provincial policies that require me to trigger lock my crossbow when on display. Having been doing it with long-guns, it does really stack up as a big imposition to do it with my crossbow. I know, if you keep conceding ground to them, it will mean they will eventually have it all. Unfortunately its a human failing, appetite grows on what it feeds. Public safety is paramount. In the name of public safety politician can seem to get away with passing any piece of legislation they please. Here's the thing, regulated hunting was not the brain child of government, it came from the hunting community, watching the demise of the passenger pigeon and the lost of the great buffalo herd. It was becoming apparent if market hunting was stopped there would soon be no game to hunt. Hence no more hunting, and so hunting groups put pressure on the government to introduce regulated hunting to conserve the wildlife resource. So maybe its time for us to mandate the government add crossbows to the Firearms Act, instead of running for cover every time some wing-nut misuses one. What would this say to the population at large, if it was the hunting community, who were the ones promoting the cause of public safety rather than the government. If we don't start turning the tables on public safety concerns, the future of hunting doesn't look to promising.

You don't stop hunting because you grow old. You grow old because you stop hunting
- Gun Nut

[rippin_355]

A crossbow wasn't even used as said a couple times all ready. Initially that was the report but wasn't the case.

Sent from my SM-G925W8 using Tapatalk

[JBen]

We know that rippen.
Why do you think he had one? Could it be due to his record, a revolving door justice system and they are the next best thing to a gun? Willing to bet, his reason for having one, were nothing good.

and getting one was as easy as proving he was 18. He may not even have been asked for ID. I've never been asked for ID when buying one.

[MikePal]

Silly rebuttal.

chainsaws while brutal if used. Aren't designed to kill, I'm pretty sure more people are strangled with bare hands, than have been killed by chainsaws. Nor are they capable of ranged attacks. By all means try to kill a bear/moose/Wt with one. Let us know how you make out.

Humour JBen..right over your head..

[MikePal]

. So maybe its time for us to mandate the government add crossbows to the Firearms Act, instead of running for cover every time some wing-nut misuses one. What would this say to the population at large, if it was the hunting community, who were the ones promoting the cause of public safety rather than the government. If we don't start turning the tables on public safety concerns, the future of hunting doesn't look to promising.

I think you're on the right track, but I think Mr Friedman has a cleaner approach...make it mandatory that people who AREN"T legally allowed to be in possession of one are blocked from buying them....why make those who are legal to own one make the concession.

“When a weapons prohibition is ordered by courts, they give a long list of things, and they include crossbows on that list, always,” Solomon Friedman, a firearms law expert, explains. “It’s required by the wording of the Criminal Code.”

However, stores selling crossbows have no way of knowing about a court order. Unlike firearms, a licence isn’t needed to buy a crossbow.

In New Brunswick, the provincial chief firearms officer gives gun retailers lists of people who are under weapons prohibitions, Friedman says. It should be practical to scale that up to a searchable database, and open it to crossbow sellers, he says.

“I don’t think it would be a big deal to have a prohibited persons registry,” he argues. “It shouldn’t cost all that much money and shouldn’t take all that much time.”

[JBen]

That's all you really ever have anymore Mike. Snide comments and insults. Shame because you used to be able to discuss/debate w/o. If inclined I could add a snide comment about age. .

And the easiest, most cost effective, and "sure" way to help keep them out of the hands.
1) add their names to a data base, and more beuracracy along with all the other John Does with the same name that no clerk will be able to ascertain if John Smith in front of him, is the same John Smith with a weapons ban or restraining order.

2) add them to the list of things a person needs a valid PAL to acquire.

[MikePal]

Silly rebuttal.

That's all you really ever have anymore Mike. Snide comments and insults.

Seriously...take a look in the mirror... JBen...