I get angry when I read about people who dismiss the SKS as a junk rifle; They equate price with value.
The rifle was exceptionally designed. It was in every sense of the word, a winter warfare rifle. The stock was short because it was designed to be worn with a thick winter coat, the ammo was corrosive because non-corrosive offerings might not reliably ignite in -30 weather. As I will detail later, it was over-gassed to compensate for ice. In a climate such as Canada's I would put my faith readily in the venerable SKS.
If we were to manufacture a SKS today it would cost about $600 to manufacture with the materials, labor and machine time. The industry standard is a markup of about 20% from the manufacturer and another 20% if it comes through a distributor. That means if the SKS was manufactured today it would retail at around $800.
The next complaint is accuracy. You need to understand why the SKS is not very accurate. The big reason is the gas system. The gas port is much larger then what is actually needed to cycle the gun. Its ejections are forceful. This is to compensate for potential reliability issues from mud, dust, ice and other messy battlefield conditions. Just look to Canada's WW1 rifle, the Ross; it was a great, accurate rifle but when exposed to dirt and mud, it failed miserably putting lives at risk. The SKS will work when it needs to work. No questions asked.
But there is also the cultural difference in definition of accuracy. In the west accuracy is defined in groups. So-and-So rifle is a 1.5 MOA rifle, this-and-that is a 2 MOA rifle. Soviet accuracy is based on the realistic expectation that it will hit a man sized target at infantry ranges. For a rifle of war, what can you reasonably expect? It does exactly what it needs to do. The Soviets did not build it so Canadian and Americans could use it to "dick measure" with their arbitrary bench shot, MOA measured, groups. MOA is irrelevant in the real world.
The ballistics of the round are similar to a 30-30. Nobody expects the 30-30 to be a sniper rifle or to shoot distances over 200m so I find it disingenuous that people get angry that the SKS can not.
The SKS was replaced in all the militaries that adopted it...with a similar gun. The AK47 in Russia and the Type 81 in China. Both the AK and T81 were made with the same thoughts in mind as the SKS; the main difference between their old rifles and their new ones was detachable magazines, cheaper to build and ergonomics. Arguably all things that are available after-market for the SKS nowadays.
So the SKS is not a "cheap" rifle. It is a steal for what you actually get from that low price tag.
Saturday 3 December 2016
Tuesday 28 June 2016
Quebec Now Has a Gun Registry
I will get straight to the point: to those of you who live in Quebec I have this to say:
1) If you want to buy a gun from me, I am in no way going to bow down to your provincial government. I will continue to respect your privacy by not recording or reporting sales information to Big Brother. (I still need to verify a PAL as per the law). You can make your own decision whether you are going to comply or not.
2) Once you do register your guns, a few years down the road they will force you to pay a registration fee like they do for cars (probably a yearly fee of $100 per gun). They will break you financially to force you to give up your hobby. It is not inconceivable that they create several registration fees, perhaps $300 for semi-autos or $400 for a prescribed list of scary non-restricted guns like the VZ58. Who can stop them from doing it? The law is in place and everything can now be done with the bureaucracy. The average gun owner owns 7 firearms…. How many do you own? What will your yearly costs be for compliance?
3) Anti-gun people are never going to be happy until your guns are destroyed and you are dead in a gas chamber. Consider that when you make decisions in the next few weeks.
4) Specter Arms continues to stand by the wrongly persecuted people of Quebec.
Tuesday 14 June 2016
The Pistol Caliber Carbine (Part 2)
Now that we have the data out of the way we can start to critically think to ourselves: Does the Pistol Caliber Carbine (PCC) have a place other then as a range toy?
Firstly, the projectiles fired from PCCs are typically larger then rifle rounds which mean they have increased atmospheric drag. This causes pistol rounds to lose velocity and thus momentum very quickly compared to their rifle counterparts.
Using a standard 9mm projectile, I calculated the momentum at 100m and it comes out to roughly 2.324 Newton-Seconds (air density and humidity would change this number). Compare that to our 10” barrel AR15 which would have a momentum of 2.381 Newton-Seconds. So somewhere around the 90 meter mark we see that the 10” AR15 takes over as being the more effective firearm. With a Dominion Arms AR15 (14” barrel, sold by Specter Arms) the momentum is better at any range.
Shooting at steel has taught me that 9mm carbines are 100 meter guns… that’s all. The numbers tell me that I should downgrade that figure to 90 meters.
At 100 meters the 45ACP PCC drops to 2.915 Newton-Seconds of momentum. That is a huge drop but it still beats the 14” AR15 at the same distance. Now because the 45 round is subsonic at its standard loadings, the bullet drops quite a bit faster than 9mm. If you zero for 100 meters, at 50 meters the bullet is going to be a terrifying 5.3” above your intended point of aim. If you zero at 75 meters, the rise is acceptable before the 75 meter mark (max 2.5”) but falls rapidly after. Practically speaking, the 45 PCC is a 75 meter gun.
For the sake of argument and because we have not considered 40 S&W or 10mm, we will conclude that the PCC (as a general rule) is for close ranges of 100m or less.
This in itself is not a big deal. The National Tactical Officers Association reports that the average distance that a police “Sniper” has to engage at it 76 meters. Strangely enough that is also the distance that most battles in WW2 were fought at. Most terrain in WW2 was wooded or urban so we can extrapolate that the PCC would also be effective in these areas.
Carrying Capacity
On a standard Molle vest, a pistol magazine takes up one loop of space wide by 2 tall whereas a AR15 magazine takes up two loops of space by 3 tall. As 9mm glock magazine using PCC are most common, we will consider the question of carrying capacity with those in mind.
If we consider legality, we can get 6 pistol magazines into the space we would get 4 LAR magazines (60 versus 40 rounds or 3:2). Using a legal technicality we can use 50 Beowulf magazines giving us our best ratio of 20 rounds for the PCC versus 17 rounds in the Beowulf. If we use regular capacity magazines, the ratio does not change from the first example going to 90:60 or 3:2.
Any way you look at it… Legal or illegal, the PCC gives us the ability to carry more ammo loaded in magazines and ready to use.
We lose ground when we go to 45ACP in terms of carrying capacity. PCCs that use 1911 mags typically only hold 8 rounds. There are 10 round magazines but they are 3 molle loops high versus the normal 2. In the end, carry capacity becomes about even with AR15s versus 45ACP PCCs.
For those who want to just stick magazines in a pocket or a bag, the ratio does not change. In terms of space if we consider the height, length and depth of the various magazines, the ratios stay the same... about 3:2.
In urban conflict a great deal of effort is put into logistics. It has been found in all of the great 20th century urban battles from Ortona to Grozny, that ammo consumption is a lot higher. The ability to carry more ammo becomes especially useful in urban terrain.
In the old cowboy days, long guns and revolvers were often carried that matched in caliber. Being able to use your ammo in two firearms was a lot more handy then a mish-mash of rounds.
PCCs are neither lighter nor more heavy then a comparable rifle. Granted some PCCs (like the Sub-2000) are very light but for the most part, light rifles and PCCs weigh about the same.
Cost
At the low end, a new PCC will cost about $700 CAD. At the high end, about $1500. This is completely on par with the costs of an AR15 which (on the low end) costs about $700. The VZ58 is in the middle at about $1100. M305 (Chinese M14) is about $700. So speaking strictly in terms of cost of gun, there is no advantage of one over the other. They are so close in terms of prices range that we can actually discount this as a factor.
Ammo costs however are a bit different. The Vz58, offers the cheapest ammo. The 223 and 9mm are only a few pennies per round in cost from each other so they are essentially the same. 45ACP is the most expensive of the rounds mentioned. So if we are comparing a 223 rifle (like the AR15) versus a 45 PCC, the cost for the 45 PCC is greater.
Putting it all together.
The PCC is effective at close ranges. That means that the only terrain it has any value in is dense forest or urban areas where engagement ranges are close and having a firearm that is fast to bring on target is valuable. The larger bullets and atmospheric drag cause PCCs to lose velocity faster then their rifle counterparts. The PCC is a terrible choice in open or semi-open areas such as fields, mountains, roads or varying terrain.
We know from history that urban operations require a larger volume of ammo. The PCC offers that. There is a philosophy that holds that the person who runs out of ammo in a gunfight will be the loser.
The sound signature from a PCC is a lot less than a rifle. You will still suffer hearing damage from prolonged use but it will not be the stunning, deafening blast in closed spaces as a rifle would be.
With the data we have available, we can reasonably say that the PCC is more effective than a light rifle such as the AR15 in urban areas only. They are on par with each other in forest terrain but in mixed terrain or open terrain, the short range of the PCC makes it a terrible choice.
If you want a carbine that is good in a lot of places and has versatility, then the PCC should not be your choice. If you can say with certainty that in a disaster, your area of operations is going to be urban, then go with the PCC.
In the next part I will go over the various PCCs that are available in Canada.
Firstly, the projectiles fired from PCCs are typically larger then rifle rounds which mean they have increased atmospheric drag. This causes pistol rounds to lose velocity and thus momentum very quickly compared to their rifle counterparts.
Using a standard 9mm projectile, I calculated the momentum at 100m and it comes out to roughly 2.324 Newton-Seconds (air density and humidity would change this number). Compare that to our 10” barrel AR15 which would have a momentum of 2.381 Newton-Seconds. So somewhere around the 90 meter mark we see that the 10” AR15 takes over as being the more effective firearm. With a Dominion Arms AR15 (14” barrel, sold by Specter Arms) the momentum is better at any range.
Shooting at steel has taught me that 9mm carbines are 100 meter guns… that’s all. The numbers tell me that I should downgrade that figure to 90 meters.
At 100 meters the 45ACP PCC drops to 2.915 Newton-Seconds of momentum. That is a huge drop but it still beats the 14” AR15 at the same distance. Now because the 45 round is subsonic at its standard loadings, the bullet drops quite a bit faster than 9mm. If you zero for 100 meters, at 50 meters the bullet is going to be a terrifying 5.3” above your intended point of aim. If you zero at 75 meters, the rise is acceptable before the 75 meter mark (max 2.5”) but falls rapidly after. Practically speaking, the 45 PCC is a 75 meter gun.
For the sake of argument and because we have not considered 40 S&W or 10mm, we will conclude that the PCC (as a general rule) is for close ranges of 100m or less.
This in itself is not a big deal. The National Tactical Officers Association reports that the average distance that a police “Sniper” has to engage at it 76 meters. Strangely enough that is also the distance that most battles in WW2 were fought at. Most terrain in WW2 was wooded or urban so we can extrapolate that the PCC would also be effective in these areas.
Carrying Capacity
On a standard Molle vest, a pistol magazine takes up one loop of space wide by 2 tall whereas a AR15 magazine takes up two loops of space by 3 tall. As 9mm glock magazine using PCC are most common, we will consider the question of carrying capacity with those in mind.
If we consider legality, we can get 6 pistol magazines into the space we would get 4 LAR magazines (60 versus 40 rounds or 3:2). Using a legal technicality we can use 50 Beowulf magazines giving us our best ratio of 20 rounds for the PCC versus 17 rounds in the Beowulf. If we use regular capacity magazines, the ratio does not change from the first example going to 90:60 or 3:2.
Any way you look at it… Legal or illegal, the PCC gives us the ability to carry more ammo loaded in magazines and ready to use.
We lose ground when we go to 45ACP in terms of carrying capacity. PCCs that use 1911 mags typically only hold 8 rounds. There are 10 round magazines but they are 3 molle loops high versus the normal 2. In the end, carry capacity becomes about even with AR15s versus 45ACP PCCs.
For those who want to just stick magazines in a pocket or a bag, the ratio does not change. In terms of space if we consider the height, length and depth of the various magazines, the ratios stay the same... about 3:2.
In urban conflict a great deal of effort is put into logistics. It has been found in all of the great 20th century urban battles from Ortona to Grozny, that ammo consumption is a lot higher. The ability to carry more ammo becomes especially useful in urban terrain.
In the old cowboy days, long guns and revolvers were often carried that matched in caliber. Being able to use your ammo in two firearms was a lot more handy then a mish-mash of rounds.
PCCs are neither lighter nor more heavy then a comparable rifle. Granted some PCCs (like the Sub-2000) are very light but for the most part, light rifles and PCCs weigh about the same.
Cost
At the low end, a new PCC will cost about $700 CAD. At the high end, about $1500. This is completely on par with the costs of an AR15 which (on the low end) costs about $700. The VZ58 is in the middle at about $1100. M305 (Chinese M14) is about $700. So speaking strictly in terms of cost of gun, there is no advantage of one over the other. They are so close in terms of prices range that we can actually discount this as a factor.
Ammo costs however are a bit different. The Vz58, offers the cheapest ammo. The 223 and 9mm are only a few pennies per round in cost from each other so they are essentially the same. 45ACP is the most expensive of the rounds mentioned. So if we are comparing a 223 rifle (like the AR15) versus a 45 PCC, the cost for the 45 PCC is greater.
Putting it all together.
The PCC is effective at close ranges. That means that the only terrain it has any value in is dense forest or urban areas where engagement ranges are close and having a firearm that is fast to bring on target is valuable. The larger bullets and atmospheric drag cause PCCs to lose velocity faster then their rifle counterparts. The PCC is a terrible choice in open or semi-open areas such as fields, mountains, roads or varying terrain.
We know from history that urban operations require a larger volume of ammo. The PCC offers that. There is a philosophy that holds that the person who runs out of ammo in a gunfight will be the loser.
The sound signature from a PCC is a lot less than a rifle. You will still suffer hearing damage from prolonged use but it will not be the stunning, deafening blast in closed spaces as a rifle would be.
With the data we have available, we can reasonably say that the PCC is more effective than a light rifle such as the AR15 in urban areas only. They are on par with each other in forest terrain but in mixed terrain or open terrain, the short range of the PCC makes it a terrible choice.
If you want a carbine that is good in a lot of places and has versatility, then the PCC should not be your choice. If you can say with certainty that in a disaster, your area of operations is going to be urban, then go with the PCC.
In the next part I will go over the various PCCs that are available in Canada.
Tuesday 7 June 2016
The Pistol Caliber Carbine (Part 1)
The Pistol Caliber Carbine (PCC) is debated in terms of its practical use. Some view it as a range toy, others include this firearm as part of their survival plan. In exploring this topic we need to first look at hard data before we can really explore things like philosophy of use. In Part One of the Pistol Caliber Carbine I will explore the physics involved with this class of firearm versus the conventional SHTF rifle, the AR15.
In Part 2, we will use this data to discuss philosophy of use.
In Part 3, we will talk about common PCCs in Canada.
There are two empirical methods of assessing the terminal performance of a round
1) Kinetic energy
2) Momentum
You can skew the results in favor of your favorite firearm just by selecting a method of measurement that supports the strength of your bullet. The kinetic energy method holds that a rounds potential is based on the physics formula for kinetic energy where energy is equal to half the mass times velocity squared. With this measurement method, bullets that go fast are considered superior to those with mass.
On the other end, momentum is based on s simple velocity times mass equation. People who gravitate towards heavier calibers prefer this method of measurement.
Speaking anecdotally, real world users of light but fast bullets such as HK’s 4.7mm in the MP7, tell about having to expend half a magazine to quickly put someone down. Similar to this, Delta force operators in Mogadishu found that their heavy hitting 1911s in 45ACP were more effective then their M4 carbines in putting the drug addled Somalis down.
Secondly, if a bullet’s energy expands into an empty body cavity or it exits the body having not transmitted all its energy, then energy kinetic is not an appropriate measurement.
This is why I prefer momentum and will use this as my measurement standard for the following analysis.
In Canada, AR15 users (in an effort to look more cool) seemingly have gravitated towards the 10” barrel on their AR15s. I don’t know anyone who goes out and shoots anything other than 55grain bullets (except for me) so I will use that as my bullet weight.
Using momentum, the numbers read as follows… 2616fps (797m/s) on a 55 grain (3.56g) projectile.
Final result is 2.837 Newton Seconds.
Out of a handgun, the average 115gr 9mm projectile reads as follows… 1100fps (335m/s) on a 115 grain (7.45g) projectile.
Final result is 2.496 Newton-Seconds.
Out of a pistol, the 9mm is a lot worse than the 10” AR15.
Now if we up the barrel length to 18” on our 9mm PCC to make a non-restricted firearm in Canada our velocity jumps to 1297fps (395m/s)
Final result is 2.942 Neuton-Seconds.
Oh ho! That is better than the 10” barrel AR15!
How about your standard 230gr (14.90g) 45ACP projectile out of a 18” barrel?
Final result is 4.472 Newton-Seconds.
Wow…. The 45ACP has ballistics like a rainbow with its low speeds but at close ranges, it has an unbeatable punch to it.
Specter Arms sells 14.75” barrel AR15s. Longer than what is cool but let’s run the numbers on those…
Final result is 3.122 Newton-Seconds. At this point, the AR15 beats the 9mm PCC but still falls short against the 45ACP PCC.
So the truth is, from a physics perspective, the PCC is just as effective as a AR15 at close ranges.
Now long ranges (100m+) is where the PCC falls down. This is where we need to look at philosophy of use… but that is for the next article.
In Part 2, we will use this data to discuss philosophy of use.
In Part 3, we will talk about common PCCs in Canada.
There are two empirical methods of assessing the terminal performance of a round
1) Kinetic energy
2) Momentum
You can skew the results in favor of your favorite firearm just by selecting a method of measurement that supports the strength of your bullet. The kinetic energy method holds that a rounds potential is based on the physics formula for kinetic energy where energy is equal to half the mass times velocity squared. With this measurement method, bullets that go fast are considered superior to those with mass.
On the other end, momentum is based on s simple velocity times mass equation. People who gravitate towards heavier calibers prefer this method of measurement.
Speaking anecdotally, real world users of light but fast bullets such as HK’s 4.7mm in the MP7, tell about having to expend half a magazine to quickly put someone down. Similar to this, Delta force operators in Mogadishu found that their heavy hitting 1911s in 45ACP were more effective then their M4 carbines in putting the drug addled Somalis down.
Secondly, if a bullet’s energy expands into an empty body cavity or it exits the body having not transmitted all its energy, then energy kinetic is not an appropriate measurement.
This is why I prefer momentum and will use this as my measurement standard for the following analysis.
In Canada, AR15 users (in an effort to look more cool) seemingly have gravitated towards the 10” barrel on their AR15s. I don’t know anyone who goes out and shoots anything other than 55grain bullets (except for me) so I will use that as my bullet weight.
Using momentum, the numbers read as follows… 2616fps (797m/s) on a 55 grain (3.56g) projectile.
Final result is 2.837 Newton Seconds.
Out of a handgun, the average 115gr 9mm projectile reads as follows… 1100fps (335m/s) on a 115 grain (7.45g) projectile.
Final result is 2.496 Newton-Seconds.
Out of a pistol, the 9mm is a lot worse than the 10” AR15.
Now if we up the barrel length to 18” on our 9mm PCC to make a non-restricted firearm in Canada our velocity jumps to 1297fps (395m/s)
Final result is 2.942 Neuton-Seconds.
Oh ho! That is better than the 10” barrel AR15!
How about your standard 230gr (14.90g) 45ACP projectile out of a 18” barrel?
Final result is 4.472 Newton-Seconds.
Wow…. The 45ACP has ballistics like a rainbow with its low speeds but at close ranges, it has an unbeatable punch to it.
Specter Arms sells 14.75” barrel AR15s. Longer than what is cool but let’s run the numbers on those…
Final result is 3.122 Newton-Seconds. At this point, the AR15 beats the 9mm PCC but still falls short against the 45ACP PCC.
So the truth is, from a physics perspective, the PCC is just as effective as a AR15 at close ranges.
Now long ranges (100m+) is where the PCC falls down. This is where we need to look at philosophy of use… but that is for the next article.
Monday 23 May 2016
Why the Gunshow?
"I don’t like gunshows, everything is overpriced".
I have read this statement before. Never heard it in person, although I
have heard variants such as "you are the only one with reasonable prices".
Or how about, "Everything is on the internet, why do I need to waste my time?"
The big problem is the complaint of high prices. This is a legitimate concern and one that is based on a generational split rather then actual pricing.
Old vendors come from an era where you negotiate the price. They can be talked down in price to fair market value. But because their generation has always done that, to make their margins, they price things high to start off from a beter negotiating position. Older people get this but younger people see the prices and rightfully say "That is too expensive" as they cross-check the price on
their internet enabled smartphone.
Then there are people like me.
The older people come to me and I will not budge on my prices; they are set by my business plan with fixed margins based on MSRP. They think I am expensive because I don't negotiate down. The younger folks check my prices and are pleasantly surprised...."You are the only one with reasonable prices".
I can give a deal; pay in cash and I don't charge GST. You also don't have to pay shipping and can have it today.
The gunshow also lets you see and try new things. Reading about guns is fun but you really can't appreciate the features without the tactile. You can read reviews saying the XCR is front heavy.
Front heavy for who?
Some kid who writes internet articles or a weight lifting trucker?
Are they you? Do they have your strength, eyes and arm length?
And with optics, you don’t know how heavy something really is. The 3RS scope by NCStar has useful features and is priced right but is the weight worth it to you? What optical quality do you need? Can you accept a nebulous "good" as a rating of glass clarity? Shouldn’t you see for yourself?
And what about reflex sights? Can the internet really tell you how bright it is? Or can they prove it is paralax free? You don't need to trust anyone - you can find out yourself.
The people selling are typically experts at what they sell. I always tell people that I only sell within my niche because I can not offer expert advice on things outside of it.
I have taught people many things as well as showed them stuff, they had no idea existed but made them excited.
The gunshow is also the only place to find rare out of production items.
Go on a store's website and find yourself a Lee-Enfeild. You can't can you?
And the best reason of all - anonymity. If you buy on the internet, your information is being recorded. Call it what you like but I refer to it as the shadow registry. At the gunshow most vendors will simply check if you have a valid firearms licence and never write down your information.
I have read this statement before. Never heard it in person, although I
have heard variants such as "you are the only one with reasonable prices".
Or how about, "Everything is on the internet, why do I need to waste my time?"
The big problem is the complaint of high prices. This is a legitimate concern and one that is based on a generational split rather then actual pricing.
Old vendors come from an era where you negotiate the price. They can be talked down in price to fair market value. But because their generation has always done that, to make their margins, they price things high to start off from a beter negotiating position. Older people get this but younger people see the prices and rightfully say "That is too expensive" as they cross-check the price on
their internet enabled smartphone.
Then there are people like me.
The older people come to me and I will not budge on my prices; they are set by my business plan with fixed margins based on MSRP. They think I am expensive because I don't negotiate down. The younger folks check my prices and are pleasantly surprised...."You are the only one with reasonable prices".
I can give a deal; pay in cash and I don't charge GST. You also don't have to pay shipping and can have it today.
The gunshow also lets you see and try new things. Reading about guns is fun but you really can't appreciate the features without the tactile. You can read reviews saying the XCR is front heavy.
Front heavy for who?
Some kid who writes internet articles or a weight lifting trucker?
Are they you? Do they have your strength, eyes and arm length?
And with optics, you don’t know how heavy something really is. The 3RS scope by NCStar has useful features and is priced right but is the weight worth it to you? What optical quality do you need? Can you accept a nebulous "good" as a rating of glass clarity? Shouldn’t you see for yourself?
And what about reflex sights? Can the internet really tell you how bright it is? Or can they prove it is paralax free? You don't need to trust anyone - you can find out yourself.
The people selling are typically experts at what they sell. I always tell people that I only sell within my niche because I can not offer expert advice on things outside of it.
I have taught people many things as well as showed them stuff, they had no idea existed but made them excited.
The gunshow is also the only place to find rare out of production items.
Go on a store's website and find yourself a Lee-Enfeild. You can't can you?
And the best reason of all - anonymity. If you buy on the internet, your information is being recorded. Call it what you like but I refer to it as the shadow registry. At the gunshow most vendors will simply check if you have a valid firearms licence and never write down your information.
Saturday 2 January 2016
Mental Health Issues and Firearms Ownership
Almost all mass shootings that have been committed in the USA over the last 2 years have largely been perpetrated by those with mental health issues.
On the gun debate, there are those who believe that better mental health screening is critical while others think this would be an infringement on their right to own and enjoy firearms.
This issue is polarizing; and if you understand the laws, you see that both sides have merit to their arguments.
Mental health is always evolving in its definition and that is where the fear lies. 30 years ago, an excitable little boy who did not want to sit in school would be classified as “a little boy”. Today he is classified as mentally ill, “ADHD” and medicated.
Right now owning a gun is not considered a mental illness. But fringe groups want it classified as such. Public pressure, can change the opinion of science. Prior to the 70’s homosexuality was considered a mental illness. Science did not change that definition; pressure and politics did. That same pressure can change the definition for gun owners. Then wanting to own a gun is a mental illness which invalidates your ability to buy one. After that, arguing that you need one is irrelevant: you have grocery stores so don’t need to hunt. You don’t need to be a competition shooter; join the reserves. You don’t need self-defense, you have the police.
In Canada if you have been treated for a mental illness, it will almost certainly disqualify you for a firearms license. So if you enjoy shooting but you want to see a medical practitioner for your depression or PTSD you will be denied your hobby. We need people to seek help when they are not mentally well, while the current system encourages you not to get help.
So what is the solution? Specificity. Instead of using a blanket statement that uses a changing mental health system as the basis for definition, all reasons should be spelt out and codified in law so what we consider to be normal today will remain the same definition 20 years from now protecting us from politics and pressure. Also, those who seek mental help should not be penalized. In fact those who seek mental help should be exempt from even needing to report it.
The only mental cases that should be reported are those people who do not voluntarily seek help AND meet the codified definitions laid out in the law. This would weed out those who are actually dangerous from those who are temporarily sick and want to get better.
On the gun debate, there are those who believe that better mental health screening is critical while others think this would be an infringement on their right to own and enjoy firearms.
This issue is polarizing; and if you understand the laws, you see that both sides have merit to their arguments.
Mental health is always evolving in its definition and that is where the fear lies. 30 years ago, an excitable little boy who did not want to sit in school would be classified as “a little boy”. Today he is classified as mentally ill, “ADHD” and medicated.
Right now owning a gun is not considered a mental illness. But fringe groups want it classified as such. Public pressure, can change the opinion of science. Prior to the 70’s homosexuality was considered a mental illness. Science did not change that definition; pressure and politics did. That same pressure can change the definition for gun owners. Then wanting to own a gun is a mental illness which invalidates your ability to buy one. After that, arguing that you need one is irrelevant: you have grocery stores so don’t need to hunt. You don’t need to be a competition shooter; join the reserves. You don’t need self-defense, you have the police.
In Canada if you have been treated for a mental illness, it will almost certainly disqualify you for a firearms license. So if you enjoy shooting but you want to see a medical practitioner for your depression or PTSD you will be denied your hobby. We need people to seek help when they are not mentally well, while the current system encourages you not to get help.
So what is the solution? Specificity. Instead of using a blanket statement that uses a changing mental health system as the basis for definition, all reasons should be spelt out and codified in law so what we consider to be normal today will remain the same definition 20 years from now protecting us from politics and pressure. Also, those who seek mental help should not be penalized. In fact those who seek mental help should be exempt from even needing to report it.
The only mental cases that should be reported are those people who do not voluntarily seek help AND meet the codified definitions laid out in the law. This would weed out those who are actually dangerous from those who are temporarily sick and want to get better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)