The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Lumber]

As for militaries and police, their procurement decisions are driven by offensive parity, logistics, and liability, not by civilian mass-casualty prevention. The fact that a tool is optimal for professionals operating against armed adversaries does not make it uniquely responsible for harm against unarmed civilians.

Aren't you kind of making/validating @IKnowNothing 's point here?

Read about Malcolm George Baker's weapon of choice. He could have easily doubled or tripled his body count had he not given up.

Kind of an apples and oranges example here. Baker stopped because he'd finished killing all the people he had a beef with.

 

[Fabius]

Someone needs to articulate what specific technical characteristic is too much for civilian ownership. Otherwise there is nothing to debate other than emotional feelings.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Aren't you kind of making/validating @IKnowNothing 's point here?

I don't think so. It's speaking to combat effectiveness against armed opponents, not public safety. Two entirely different contexts.

Kind of an apples and oranges example here. Baker stopped because he'd finished killing all the people he had a beef with.

I think it reinforces my point. Even a low capacity shotgun that needs reloading after 2 shots can kill multiple people in a short time. Lethality depends on intent and opportunity, and not primarily cosmetic style or rate of fire.

He could have racked up 30 bodies if he kept going.

Cumbria shootings in 2010.
Sawed‑off double‑barrel shotgun along with a .22‑cal rifle. 12 dead, injured 11. Could have kept going but he shot himself.

 

[Deleted member 175000]

Bondi doesn't demonstrate what you claim. Australia banned all semi-automatic long guns (not military-style firearms based on appearance). That is a functional ban. You cannot use a comprehensive prohibition to justify a selective, optics-based ban.

Plastic furniture is your red herring.

In any case- yes a functional ban limited the effectiveness of the tools the scumbags had available- saving lives.

As for militaries and police, their procurement decisions are driven by offensive parity, logistics, and liability, not by civilian mass-casualty prevention. The fact that a tool is optimal for professionals operating against armed adversaries does not make it...

Sounds like your describing one tool having greater functional capability than another

 

[Jarnhamar]

Sounds like your describing one tool having greater functional capability than another

$750m is going to go quick. Hopefully theres some left over for your guns.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Speaking of deadly shotguns and short barrel rifles, here's a months-old article from Australia. Check out the dangerous guns they're getting off the streets.

More than 1,000 guns and parts seized in illicit weapon crackdown in Australia and New Zealand​

 

[Deleted member 175000]

$750m is going to go quick. Hopefully theres some left over for your guns.

Not gonna happen Wendy. Or is it Nathalie?

 

[Jarnhamar]

Not gonna happen Wendy. Or is it Nathalie?

Ad hominin coming out? That's not like you.

Liberals banned .22 caliber tin-can plinkers. I'm totally sure your lever 30-30 and 12 GA, both of which can kill a bear and put a soft-ball size hole through someone, is totally safe from being banned. PolySeSouvient and friends are totally fine with you having that life-taking firepower in your hands.

 

[Deleted member 175000]

Ad hominin coming out? That's not like you.

Liberals banned .22 caliber tin-can plinkers. I'm totally sure your lever 30-30 and 12 GA, both of which can kill a bear and put a soft-ball size hole through someone, is totally safe from being banned. PolySeSouvient and friends are totally fine with you having that life-taking firepower in your hands.

My apologies. But you have put yourself in the position of arguing on their side- seemingly out of nothing but spite.

Poly wants what poly wants, but the confiscation has been put off (again) and the last time they pushed into fudd guns the weight of public opinion forced them back within days.

 

[Haggis]

the last time they pushed into fudd guns the weight of public opinion forced them back within days.

That was before "fudd guns" very publicly killed a bunch of Jews.

 

[Jarnhamar]

My apologies. But you have put yourself in the position of arguing on their side- seemingly out of nothing but spite.

I get it. I'm out thousands. I hope you lose your firearms. I'm pragmatic as to what the Liberal's next steps will be. You should be too. Especially if the CPC make a come back, they need something tangible; that's guns.

When someone argues that military style firearms are too dangerous vs hunting guns all that does is erode all firearm ownership. Because those hunting guns are arguably just as dangerous, and they're next.

As for arguing on their side - saying that semi-auto military style firearms are dangerous and should be banned is arguing on their side. It's helped them get guns banned piece by piece. And they won that one.

Someone with a gun, any gun (as I've shown in examples) can kill a lot of unarmed civilians. Especially unarmed panicked people in a confined space running around. PolySeSouvient et el argue about rate of fire and magazine capacity. My observation on it is that it comes down to intent and opportunity. Gabriel Wortman had both, it didn't matter what kind of gun he was using. In his situation using an AR15 may have saved lives vs heavier hunting guns. At the end of the day, maybe someone with an AR kills 15 people and someone with a shotgun "only" kills 12. Your hunting guns and mine are on the chopping block next.

Poly wants what poly wants, but the confiscation has been put off (again) and the last time they pushed into fudd guns the weight of public opinion forced them back within days.

We're not so dissimilar from Australia. They didn't even know how many dead bodies they had and they were already squawking about more gun control, like trained seals. Just like us and Nova Scotia. If some asshole in Canada lights up some kids with a shotgun or Winchester model 30-30 we know what's next.

 

[Lumber]

I don't think so. It's speaking to combat effectiveness against armed opponents, not public safety. Two entirely different contexts.



I think it reinforces my point. Even a low capacity shotgun that needs reloading after 2 shots can kill multiple people in a short time. Lethality depends on intent and opportunity, and not primarily cosmetic style or rate of fire.

He could have racked up 30 bodies if he kept going.

Cumbria shootings in 2010.
Sawed‑off double‑barrel shotgun along with a .22‑cal rifle. 12 dead, injured 11. Could have kept going but he shot himself.

I don't want to wade too hard into this. But! I just read the detailed step by step account of the Quebec City mosque shooting. I am confident (though not fully convinced) that if he was limited to a bolt action rifle, the death toll could have been lower. The rifle (let's say a 308) would have done more damage individually, but several of the victims tried to flee and one even attempted to wrestle with the shooter, and the longer barrel, the need to re chamber a round after each shot and with smaller magazine size (unless he obtained an illegal extended mag) could have played into the victims favour. Now, this was a close quarters situation, so I'm not claiming this entirely universally, but in this case I think it could have made a difference.

 

[Fabius]

I don't want to wade too hard into this. But! I just read the detailed step by step account of the Quebec City mosque shooting. I am confident (though not fully convinced) that if he was limited to a bolt action rifle, the death toll could have been lower. The rifle (let's say a 308) would have done more damage individually, but several of the victims tried to flee and one even attempted to wrestle with the shooter, and the longer barrel, the need to re chamber a round after each shot and with smaller magazine size (unless he obtained an illegal extended mag) could have played into the victims favour. Now, this was a close quarters situation, so I'm not claiming this entirely universally, but in this case I think it could have made a difference.

You are aware of the current and previous regulations in Canada right? Your post indicates some gaps.
A bolt action rifle has no barrel length restrictions only the overall lengths apply.
A bolt action rifle has zero magazine capacity restrictions, you can have as many as you want.

 

[Jarnhamar]

but in this case I think it could have made a difference.

100% it could have.

A 308 could also go through a body at close range into another.

Also keep in mind The Mosque shooters high capacity semi-automatic rifle jammed before he got inside the mosque and he had to switch to his Glock 19 pistol, which is what he used to shoot everyone with. No one was killed with the rifle.

6 fatalities with a pistol. What if he had a shotgun with 5-7 rounds that could fire a big slug or OO Buck shooting 8 lead pellets per shot (or 15 per if he's using 3&1/2" shells)

 

[suffolkowner]

Poly is never going to stop. I doubt they would stop at muzzle loaders.
Theres not much more restrictions for Australia to bring in either other than limiting to the above
banning composite stock SA instead of wood stock SA is stupid
this no mans land of the guns being banned but not banned is outrageous but better than confiscation

 

[Deleted member 175000]

I get it. I'm out thousands. I hope you lose your firearms. I'm pragmatic as to what the Liberal's next steps will be.

I'm assuming there's a "don't" missing?

It's funny, because "pragmatic" is exactly the word i would use to describe my stance.

When someone argues that military style firearms are too dangerous vs hunting guns all that does is erode all firearm ownership.

Not "too"- "more". "More" is quantifiable, observable. "More" is the advantages that other factors can mitigate, that make them optimal for warfare, that provide offensive parity against Opfor (Contextually -LEO's)

"Too" is a subjective determination that will be made by society, based on competing information brought forward from both sides.

Because those hunting guns are arguably just as dangerous, and they're next.

Pragmatically- lets win the argument that's still winnable and keep it from happening.

To be clear - I'm not in favor of the bans. I'm ambivalent. I understand the core of them, I understand where the majority of public opinion falls, and it's not a hill I care to climb up and deny reality on, especially when I think it's a bad strategic move.

 

[suffolkowner]

every gun the Liberals have banned in the last 5 yrs or so that was NR was or could be depending on caliber a hunting gun

 

[Fabius]

Also keep in mind The Mosque shooters high capacity semi-automatic rifle jammed before he got inside the mosque and he had to switch to his Glock 19 pistol, which is what he used to shoot everyone with. No one was killed with the rifle.

One of the concerns that the gun control advocates have with internationally legitimate shooting sports is that they help make the participants proficient.

Not "too"- "more". "More" is quantifiable, observable. "More" is the advantages that other factors can mitigate, that make them optimal for warfare, that provide offensive parity against Opfor (Contextually -LEO's)

No one on the gun control side in Canada has offered a technical description of “more”. It’s just “assault style”, which is emotional gibberish.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I'm assuming there's a "don't" missing?

Yes, of course.

Not "too"- "more". "More" is quantifiable, observable. "More" is the advantages that other factors can mitigate, that make them optimal for warfare, that provide offensive parity against Opfor (Contextually -LEO's)

Optimal for warfare like the Mosque shooters rifle jamming and him having to run around with a pistol.

I'm open to anyone telling me I'm wrong and that hunting firearms can't be just as deadly as military style semi-autos in an active shooter scenario, or more deadly situation depending. It's just my opinion.


I'd rather see more proactive police work. Like what you ask? For starters, the CFO can direct police to do spot checks on firearm owners for restricted weapons. I believe they need to give you some kind of warning unless you have over 10 restricted firearm's then they can just show up and demand to see them, and how they're stored. I'd like to see anyone charged with any sort of illegal firearm possession or crime have the police given the power to do spot checks on their vehicles and homes for a certain number of years.

Got caught with a unregistered Glock? Guess what, police can search your car anytime they pull you over, and search your house. It wouldn't stop a shooter like the Mosque shooter but it would put a dent into the illegal gun trade.

To be clear - I'm not in favor of the bans.

My mistake. It sounded like you were in favor of banning military style firearms because they're more dangerous.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Doesn't matter what law you put in place. Doesn't matter which guns you designate. Doesn't matter your feelings on the subject. Today's technology allows even a novice to make a functional, semi automatic firearm in their bedroom. If they plan on a mass shooting, manufacturing an illegal firearm is just another charge. It makes zero difference to the criminal. It is easier to build a semi auto than a bolt action.

A bolt action, especially a Lee Enfield in the hands of competent shooter, can be devastating. Ask the Germans.