BC Conservation Officer Service accused of purchasing 'military-grade' assault rifles

[Soli]

That article was one of the most idiotic and uneducated I have ever read, regarding any gun issue.

Darn you! Read your post, so then felt compelled to read the article.

And now, having read it, I too am dumber.

 

[The Heretic]

Ssshhhhh, nobody tell them that the bold action hunting rifles they replaced were also designed and implemented as "weapons of war" as were lever guns, revolvers, single action, break action, shotguns, and all black powder rifles.

Truth is that there is not a single type of firearm that was not intended for any other use than as a "weapon of war".

I see no issue with them replacing 130 year old technology with 60 year old technology.

IIRC the COs in Canada were initially equipped with Enfields?

As others have pointed out, the article is poorly written (not to mention slanted), so it is really hard to know, from the article, what long guns they are talking about.

 

[bradsteen]

So, the complaint is about IMAGE. It LOOKS scary for conservation officers to be issued semi automatic rifles. No mention of the practical limitations of the old platform or the benefits of the new one. If the author were being charged by a 500lb grizzly bear, I wonder if they'd still prefer the bolt action?

It would be nice if they could judge rifles not on the color of their cerakote, but on their utility in their intended application.

 

[The Heretic]

So, the complaint is about IMAGE. It LOOKS scary for conservation officers to be issued semi automatic rifles. No mention of the practical limitations of the old platform or the benefits of the new one. If the author were being charged by a 500lb grizzly bear, I wonder if they'd still prefer the bolt action?

It would be nice if they could judge rifles not on the color of their cerakote, but on their utility in their intended application.

So, per Canada, what is needed in the backwoods to protect people from bears, moose (more people are killed/injured by moose than bears), cougars, etc., is a semi-auto in .308 with a 10+ round mag?

But only for government employees?

 

[bradsteen]

So, per Canada, what is needed in the backwoods to protect people from bears, moose (more people are killed/injured by moose than bears), cougars, etc., is a semi-auto in .308 with a 10+ round mag?

But only for government employees?

Sounds like that's what they've determined. Obviously I disagree with the "only for gov employees" bit, but the firearm choice makes sense to me.

 

[nwslopoke]

Sounds like that's what they've determined. Obviously I disagree with the "only for gov employees" bit, but the firearm choice makes sense to me.

Also, sounds like the writer is willing for someone to be hurt or killed first, to create the need for government to step in and protect everyone else. For the greater good. Obviously, no one the writer knows could be that initial victim.

Just call the police, fire department, 911. They should only a few minutes away. Because everyone lives like the writer.

 

[billdeserthills]

Why 'military grade' is just another way of saying, 'cheaply made junk'

Why 'military grade' is just another way of saying 'cheaply made junk'

I do not think it means what you think it means.

taskandpurpose.com

 

[lucusloc]

So, the complaint is about IMAGE. It LOOKS scary for conservation officers to be issued semi automatic rifles. No mention of the practical limitations of the old platform or the benefits of the new one. If the author were being charged by a 500lb grizzly bear, I wonder if they'd still prefer the bolt action?

It would be nice if they could judge rifles not on the color of their cerakote, but on their utility in their intended application.

Intent is non-transferable. What makes a good firearm is universal; accuracy, power, reliability, capacity and ergonomics. You need to compromise on all those features to get something that can exist in the real world, but everyone is looking to maximize all those features to some extent. What you do with it once you have it determines what kind of firearm it is.

 

[Flopsweat]

Intent is non-transferable. What makes a good firearm is universal; accuracy, power, reliability, capacity and ergonomics. You need to compromise on all those features to get something that can exist in the real world, but everyone is looking to maximize all those features to some extent. What you do with it once you have it determines what kind of firearm it is.

It's a gun. If it were "safe" it would be useless.

 

[Gunbuggy]

You know what. The author of the article is right.

The tax payers of BC can't have "assault weapons" and have to get permits to own certain firearms so why the f*ck should the government agency be allowed to?

The equivalent of the ATF/FBI/IRS/ whatever othe5 3 letter agency should be limited to exactly what the civilians who pay their checks are limited to


Just my honest opinion

 

[Diamondback]

I see no issue with them replacing 130 year old technology with 60 year old technology.

I DO, when they seek to deprive ordinary citizenry of same.

 

[3MTA3]

I DO, when they seek to deprive ordinary citizenry of same.

I suspect my "they" and your "they" are not the same "they", but then I have been officially pronoun confused for the last few years of woke and probably need to go to pronoun school.

My "they" is anybody who wants to keep and bear and not the "they" who would disarm the victims of tyrants and criminals.

My point in that post is that "weapons of war" is a meaningless inflammatory phrase that covers all firearms, clubs, cutting, stabbing and other devices that can and have been used for self defense as well as offense.

 

[RVTECH]

and the rifle in the second picture, 'for a bear problem', is not a hunting rifle, at least not for anything substantial. It's only a .22

AND while he is obviously NOT responding to reports of a bear near a public pool in Coquitlam, B.C. , as per the story, what is in his left hand he appears to be lifting away from the barrel , and what is the device that appears to be mounted ON the barrel, in front of the scope?

Also it looks like he is placing something inside the 'breech' of the upper tube that is separated from the barrel.

Is this some sort of a training gun possibly? Some sort of air gun? I can't tell and have never seen anything like this before.

 

[Idaho44]

MANY decades ago, I recall a very young lad of 8 or 9, who's mom was VERY anti-gun coming into my house wanting a 'gun' to go shoot some 'bullies' who were harassing him! When the need is there .....! "Anti" anything is remarkably like "control freak" or "bully". The article seems linked to the latter! The content was pointless but the intent was very pointed!

 

[Idaho44]

AND while he is obviously NOT responding to reports of a bear near a public pool in Coquitlam, B.C. , as per the story, what is in his left hand he appears to be lifting away from the barrel , and what is the device that appears to be mounted ON the barrel, in front of the scope?

Also it looks like he is placing something inside the 'breech' of the upper tube that is separated from the barrel.

Is this some sort of a training gun possibly? Some sort of air gun? I can't tell and have never seen anything like this before.

Tranquillizer Gun? Here in Boise we shoot them with bullets so they can be "tranqed"! So much easier!

 

[RVTECH]

Tranquillizer Gun?

Ah ha! you may be right!

 

[Diamondback]

I suspect my "they" and your "they" are not the same "they", but then I have been officially pronoun confused for the last few years of woke and probably need to go to pronoun school.

My "they" is anybody who wants to keep and bear and not the "they" who would disarm the victims of tyrants and criminals.

My point in that post is that "weapons of war" is a meaningless inflammatory phrase that covers all firearms, clubs, cutting, stabbing and other devices that can and have been used for self defense as well as offense.

I think we're on the same page, my beef is anyone who says "more modern and capable for ME but NONE for thee." As far as I'm concerned the CO's should be restricted to Brown Besses or at most Civil War-era Sharps repeaters 'til they straighten up.

 

[RVTECH]

should be restricted to Brown Besses or at most Civil War-era Sharps repeaters 'til they straighten up.

Let's at least let 'em carry a Mod 94 Winchester like Sgt Preston!

 

[CamoDeafie]

I think we're on the same page, my beef is anyone who says "more modern and capable for ME but NONE for thee." As far as I'm concerned the CO's should be restricted to Brown Besses or at most Civil War-era Sharps repeaters 'til they straighten up.

Agreed. Either put LEOs on the exact same playing field as law-abiding citizens; or give law-abiding citizens the same parity of arms as the LEOs and military personnel enjoy.

 

[JeremyK]

A picture says a thousand words... have a good day, all!