The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Jarnhamar]

G2G beat me to it.

Anxious to hear why you keep calling him mentally ill Donald.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

The AR-15 and the whole move from 7.62mm to 5.56mm was actually to cause more wounding vice killing, thus committing the enemy to use more soldiers to care for wounded comrades, reducing enemy effectiveness.

My understanding was that with an 5.56mm rifle you could carry more ammo. Also, the AR-15 was a lot shorter than the M-14 making it easier to handle in the jungles of Vietnam.

 

[Haggis]

My understanding was that with an 5.56mm rifle you could carry more ammo. Also, the AR-15 was a lot shorter than the M-14 making it easier to handle in the jungles of Vietnam.

True, but the US and Australians still made extensive use of 7.62 mm in Vietnam due to the shortcomings of the 5.56 mm in the jungle. There are tons of 7 62 mm/.308 hunting rifles in Canada which are far more powerful than the AR-15.

 

[tomahawk6]

The M16 was light and alot more ammo could be carried which has seen the weapon a staple in our tool box. The M16 has less range than say an M14 which became a point of discussion During the Afghanistan War. The result I think was the advent of designate marksmen in the infantry squads with sniper type rifles. I think Canadian snipers also made an impression. ;D

 

[FJAG]

True, but the US and Australians still made extensive use of 7.62 mm in Vietnam due to the shortcomings of the 5.56 mm in the jungle. There are tons of 7 62 mm/.308 hunting rifles in Canada which are far more powerful than the AR-15.

Australians rifle sections had a mixture of M16s and FALs and an M60 GPMG (the latter two being 7.62) US rifle squads were basically M16s throughout but the platoon's weapon squad had several M60 GPMGs.

:cheers:

 

[Jarnhamar]

Can I post this here?



We’re marching on Ottawa – JOIN US
https://firearmrights.ca/en/were-marching-on-ottawa-join-us/

Canadian gun owners have been under attack by the Liberal government since the 2015 election. Bill Blair’s reaction to a horrific tragedy in Nova Scotia committed by a madman with a known criminal past and illicit firearms was to punish legal, RCMP vetted gun owners with a mass gun ban and confiscation plan, all during a global pandemic and a suspended parliament.

We are “marching on Ottawa” on Saturday, September 12, 2020 @ 1:00pmEST – The Integrity March. We are going to the capital of Canada, where the laws are made and the lawmakers are, to demand integrity from our politicians and in the decisions they make. Canadian gun owners want a safer Canada too – and we demand credible work on crime and violence.

 

[Donald H]

In the context of small arms, which includes the infamous banned rifles, firepower can be defined as a combination of the calibre, accuracy and volume of rounds being fired at a target. That can be from a single firearm, such as a rifle (C7A2/M-16), or combination of firearms sch as a rifle, squad automatic weapon (C9A2/M249) and platoon medium machine gun (C6A2/M240B).

The term "firepower" is often used to describe the capability of a specific weapon to inflict harm/damage to a target.  That's wrong.  A rifleman with an AK-47 does not have more firepower than one with a C7A2.  He has a larger calibre bullet.  He has a heavier barrel, but if he cannot employ the principles of marksmanship and hit what he's aiming at, all that is useless.

The "firepower" of long guns in Canada is severely limited by their legal magazine capacity, that being 5 rounds. Again, Liberals overlook this legal limitation when fear mongering to support their ban of lawfully owned and used firearms.

Thanks for that explanation Haggis. That tells me that I don't have a wrong idea on what 'firepower' means. Note though that the first picture that supposedly 'speaks a thousand words' is not the same picture that was later posted.

But I have to ask you why you think 'Liberals' overlook magazine capacity? Is it not one of the main talking points of the anti-gun lobby in Canada, as it is in the US?

 

[Haggis]

But I have to ask you why you think 'Liberals' overlook magazine capacity? Is it not one of the main talking points of the anti-gun lobby in Canada, as it is in the US?

When the PM and Minister Blair talk about  the rationale for banning lawfully owned"military/assault style" firearms, they frequently use the phrase "designed to kill the largest amount of people in the shortest amount of time".  This ignores the fact that a lawful gun owner needs to change magazines every five rounds.  So, they would have to carry an awful lot of magazines.  Using New Zealand's mass shooting as an example, the shooter would've needed a minimum of eleven legal Canadian capacity magazines to murder 51 people if every shot was a kill.

Again, a criminal firearm user doesn't care about legal magazine capacity limits or any other gun laws.  But criminal firearms are not the target of this OIC, amnesty period or possible compensated confiscation (buyback), just legally owned ones.  Thus, the Liberals omit any discussion of legal magazine capacity to let the public think that 30 rounders are in every gun owners closet and glovebox.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

True, but the US and Australians still made extensive use of 7.62 mm in Vietnam due to the shortcomings of the 5.56 mm in the jungle. There are tons of 7 62 mm/.308 hunting rifles in Canada which are far more powerful than the AR-15.

7.62mm was also the preferred calibre in African Brushfire Wars.  The Portuguese, South African and Rhodesian Armies all preferred the FN FAL due to much of the terrain being flat brush land or savannah.  The FN outranged the AK47 significantly and was a very effective rifle for Fireforce Operations.  The South African Army now uses the R4 and R5 series which is 5.56mm but still uses the R1 (SA FN copy) as a designated marksman rifle.

 

[Donald H]

When the PM and Minister Blair talk about  the rationale for banning lawfully owned"military/assault style" firearms, they frequently use the phrase "designed to kill the largest amount of people in the shortest amount of time".  This ignores the fact that a lawful gun owner needs to change magazines every five rounds.  So, they would have to carry an awful lot of magazines.  Using New Zealand's mass shooting as an example, the shooter would've needed a minimum of eleven legal Canadian capacity magazines to murder 51 people if every shot was a kill.

Again, a criminal firearm user doesn't care about legal magazine capacity limits or any other gun laws.  But criminal firearms are not the target of this OIC, amnesty period or possible compensated confiscation (buyback), just legally owned ones.  Thus, the Liberals omit any discussion of legal magazine capacity to let the public think that 30 rounders are in every gun owners closet and glovebox.

Thank you for your explanation, but to the point, larger magazines certainly do aid in increasing firepower. Which goes to explain my comment on the picture 'that supposedly spoke a thousand  words'. Not the second picture which was different.

:cheers:

 

[Haggis]

Thank you for your explanation, but to the point, larger magazines certainly do aid in increasing firepower. Which goes to explain my comment on the picture 'that supposedly spoke a thousand  words'. Not the second picture which was different.

Regarding that picture, which seems to show a large capacity magazine on the top rifle, an AR-15, it's important to understand that the market for custom manufactured 5 round magazines is very, very small globally.  Most 5 round magazines in Canada are formerly 20 or 30 rounders which are modified to accept only 5 rounds.  They look like the should hold 20 or 30 but are, in fact, only capable of 5 rounds capacity.

 

[Good2Golf]

Thank you for your explanation, but to the point, larger magazines certainly do aid in increasing firepower. Which goes to explain my comment on the picture 'that supposedly spoke a thousand  words'. Not the second picture which was different.

:cheers:

You seem to be missing the specific context of the two pictures that GR66 posted.  The first was to note the now legal difference between a now prohibited weapon and a still legal weapon.  Both are semi-auto .223/5.56 and would have 5-round magazines, as Haggis noted, modified so as to not be able to carry the unrestricted 20-30 rounds.

The second photo GR66 posted was to provide an accurate firearm analogy (correction) to your GM pickup (one stock, one with a 0.50 GPMG mounted) - he showed two versions of the same firearm (Ruger Mini-14) that have the same operational characteristics, just different furniture.  One most people call an assault rifle, the other they perceive as a reasonable hunting rifle (although both are now banned).

Regards
G2G

 

[Ostrozac]

7.62mm was also the preferred calibre in African Brushfire Wars.  The Portuguese, South African and Rhodesian Armies all preferred the FN FAL due to much of the terrain being flat brush land or savannah.  The FN outranged the AK47 significantly and was a very effective rifle for Fireforce Operations.  The South African Army now uses the R4 and R5 series which is 5.56mm but still uses the R1 (SA FN copy) as a designated marksman rifle.

7.62NATO was the available cartridge, not necessarily the preferred cartridge. South Africa starting adopting the R4 in 5.56mm in 1982 as a replacement to the R1/FN FAL while still heavily engaged in Angola. If they wanted to, they could have adopted the R4 in 7.62NATO, the R4 was a variant of the Galil which was available in either calibre. That South Africa chose to switch to 5.56mm while actively involved in a war strongly suggests that was actually their preference.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

When the PM and Minister Blair talk about  the rationale for banning lawfully owned"military/assault style" firearms, they frequently use the phrase "designed to kill the largest amount of people in the shortest amount of time".  This ignores the fact that a lawful gun owner needs to change magazines every five rounds.  So, they would have to carry an awful lot of magazines.  Using New Zealand's mass shooting as an example, the shooter would've needed a minimum of eleven legal Canadian capacity magazines to murder 51 people if every shot was a kill.

Again, a criminal firearm user doesn't care about legal magazine capacity limits or any other gun laws.  But criminal firearms are not the target of this OIC, amnesty period or possible compensated confiscation (buyback), just legally owned ones.  Thus, the Liberals omit any discussion of legal magazine capacity to let the public think that 30 rounders are in every gun owners closet and glovebox.

Not to mention that the OIC is far broader than that and goes after all sorts of collector grade military arms. Like a French 25mm AT gun, M72 LAW empty tubes, Several different mortars from WWII. Likely because we all live in fear of a 711 being held up by crew served weapons. It is social engineering, they hate all things military unless controlled by them.

 

[Haggis]

Not to mention that the OIC is far broader than that and goes after all sorts of collector grade military arms. Like a French 25mm AT gun, M72 LAW empty tubes, Several different mortars from WWII. Likely because we all live in fear of a 711 being held up by crew served weapons. It is social engineering, they hate all things military unless controlled by them.

The OIC was intentionally broad to show a comprehensive and decisive action towards public safety. And, the door was intentionally left open to include further guns as banned without the need for another OIC.  As we already know, the RCMP has been in a frenzy of adding to the OIC's list of banned firearms.

 

[Eaglelord17]

That's a very dangerous argument to make in a democratic country Eagleford, but I have to be honest and say that I respect it and understand that there are certain circumstances in which it's quite legitimate. The debate over capitol punishment is another example of where the same argument could be legitimate.

It's a copy of a design that was meant for doing just that if we can say that it was designed for killing people instead of it being a murder weapon. With my limited knowledge I don't know of any other long gun that is better suited to killing people. (that needs to be qualified of course)

I didn't know that. But I may be misquoting you because you added another sentence: "more than any other rifle.'

I'm not familiar with the particular shooting offhand but I'll assume he didn't use an AR-15. If that's true then it would be the exception for school shootings in the US.

I respectfully disagree. GM makes pickup trucks and that's not questioned as legitimate. If they started making pickup trucks with a 50 cal. machine mounted in the bed of the truck, that wouldn't be legitimate in my opinion. AR-15's are a copy of a weapon that was designed to kill people. (I am assuming that's correct) Therefore I consider the AR-15 to not be a legitimate weapon on Canada's streets.

There could be many different long guns that are incorrectly designated as not being legal for civilians to own. That will hopefully be sorted out over time. But at the same time there are in my opinion quite sensible laws being proposed and adopted. For instance, I owned a couple of Remington 1100's and from experience I would say that they are legitimate shotguns to own. They're a lot different from a weapons that was designed to kill people and is super efficient at doing so.

- Staff edit to fix quote box.

It is not a dangerous argument to suggest many people don't know what they are talking about. It is dangerous to suggest that all opinions are equal and that majority=right. Most people believed the world was flat for centuries, we know now that is incorrect but the majority believed it. Democracy is a terrible form of government, it just happens to be the best one tried so far.

Most people which want to ban firearms in this country tend to have no exposure to them and don't even know what our laws currently are. They are not informed at all, and what little knowledge they possess is basically American influenced trash. Movies, video game, are how they view firearms and people really don't understand they do not function as they are shown in movies. You don't have infinate capacity magazines which hit 1000% of the time on full auto, etc. As such their opinions aren't worth much. They are still entitled to them, I am not taking that away from anyone, but to say that their opinions are equal really isn't true.

All firearms are designed to kill. Be it a AR-15, A Winchester 94 (lever action), a double barrel shotgun, a handgun, a brown bess musket, etc. It is the height of ignorance to pretend that they all aren't capable of doing the same thing. Some can be more efficient, but there is a lot of factors in there. The skill of the shooter, the location, etc. I am more afraid of someone with a shotgun in close quarters than a AR-15. Ultimately what matters is who has the gun more than what the gun is. The Swiss basically all possess full autos or converted autos in their homes, going back several generations. They don't have any real crime rate however. There are little girls who ride their bikes to the range with Sig 550s (a illegal to possess firearm here) strapped to their back and there is no issue. This pretending to minimize damage by banning certain firearms is stupid. What actually minimizes damage is controlling who has firearms, and specifically getting them out of the hands of criminals.

 

[Donald H]

It is not a dangerous argument to suggest many people don't know what they are talking about.

Agreed.

It is dangerous to suggest that all opinions are equal and that majority=right.

All opinions are not equal. In a democracy, the majority decide what is right.

Most people believed the world was flat for centuries, we know now that is incorrect but the majority believed it. Democracy is a terrible form of government, it just happens to be the best one tried so far.

Agreed. And they hung witches too.

Most people which want to ban firearms in this country tend to have no exposure to them and don't even know what our laws currently are.

Agreed. At least agreed in the sense of what you are suggesting as exposure. Exposure could also mean people's impressions due to experience with damage done with firearms, as they perceive the issue

They are not informed at all, and what little knowledge they possess is basically American influenced trash. Movies, video game, are how they view firearms and people really don't understand they do not function as they are shown in movies. You don't have infinate capacity magazines which hit 1000% of the time on full auto, etc. As such their opinions aren't worth much. They are still entitled to them, I am not taking that away from anyone, but to say that their opinions are equal really isn't true.

Agreed. I think you may have misinterpreted what I said. So for clarification:

Democracy will decide the question. It is true for knowledge on guns being lacking by the majority. That which I claim is dangerous is to say that the majority doesn't get to decide. Then I provided another instance in which I gave my opinion that the majority shouldn't be allowed to decide on capitol punishment because the majority has traditionally decided wrong. (IMO) You can say the same thing about gun control.

The nature of a democracy is such that there are instances in which the public aren't given a  vote or referendum in which to decide. That can happen in a situation in which the majority of M.P.'s decide to make the decision themselves. The next election will decide whether or not they get away with doing that.

All firearms are designed to kill. Be it a AR-15, A Winchester 94 (lever action), a double barrel shotgun, a handgun, a brown bess musket, etc. It is the height of ignorance to pretend that they all aren't capable of doing the same thing. Some can be more efficient, but there is a lot of factors in there. The skill of the shooter, the location, etc. I am more afraid of someone with a shotgun in close quarters than a AR-15. Ultimately what matters is who has the gun more than what the gun is. The Swiss basically all possess full autos or converted autos in their homes, going back several generations. They don't have any real crime rate however. There are little girls who ride their bikes to the range with Sig 550s (a illegal to possess firearm here) strapped to their back and there is no issue. This pretending to minimize damage by banning certain firearms is stupid. What actually minimizes damage is controlling who has firearms, and specifically getting them out of the hands of criminals.

Agreed on all of that. My only criticism on any of it would be that you didn't mention that some firearms are specifically designed to kill people. But in fairness to your argument, it might be true that the M94 was designed to kill people? Was it?

I don't think you've mentioned anything we can disagree upon.

edit: This could all lead us to making sure everybody is aware of the meaning of 'democracy'. I'm going to assume everybody already gets it.

 

[Haggis]

Most people which want to ban firearms in this country tend to have no exposure to them and don't even know what our laws currently are.

Your comment hit a nerve so my reply is a general one, not aimed at anyone in particular.

Our PM doesn't even know the laws so how can we expect joe civvy to know them, either.  Remember when he said you could buy a gun without having to show a licence/  Clearly he meant illegal guns... or did he?

So, here's the nerve.

It's a running and disingenuous joke that most lawful firearms owners know far more about firearms laws that the majority of police/peace officers, and it's true.  But let's put that into some context.

Gun owners have guns as a hobby, be it collecting, target shooting, competing or hunting.  People become immersed in their hobbies and learn them in great detail including the laws that govern them.  So, most serious gun hobbyists take great pains to be well versed in those laws because the punishments for even a simple paper/administrative transgression are quite severe.

Police/peace officers, on the other hand, have to be somewhat versed on more than just firearms laws and they will, by necessity, be very well versed on those laws they deal with most frequently.  Highway Safety Division officers know the traffic and commercial trucking laws.  Guns and Gangs unit officer will specialize in firearms laws and the, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.  Border Services Officers (BSOs) will specialize in the Customs Act/Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.  (BSOs, for example are responsible for enforcing ninety (90) different acts and regulations.)  And this is on top of everything else they need to stay current on such as agency/service policy, collective agreements and working conditions, healthy work practices, case law, new legislation, use of force and reporting, etc. 

Couple that with the fact that our firearms laws are more poorly written than WalMart  appliance instructions and you can see where confusion can occur.

So, the next time that you, as a law abiding firearms owner, have an interaction with law enforcement, instead of getting on your high horse, maybe try to see things from the officer's position and make the encounter educational.

 

[Fabius]

This could all lead us to making sure everybody is aware of the meaning of 'democracy'. I'm going to assume everybody already gets it.

I don't think everyone understands the meaning of democracy. Respectfully, I don't think it means what you think it does to be honest.

Democracy is typically found in one of two forms. Either Direct Democracy or Representative Democracy.

Direct Democracy is exceedingly rare and exists in no nation state at this time although it exists in several regional forms such as Swiss Cantons. This is what you seem to be referring to when talking about majority rule ala everyone has a direct vote on policy.

The second more common form is Representative Democracy. This can take a multitude of sub forms, usually either some form of parliamentary or presidential democracy.
Canada, like the rest of the Commonwealth, is a Constitutional Monarchy with a parliamentary democracy.

Canadian's do not vote directly on any policy at the Federal or Provincial levels with the exception of when either level calls a referendum. We elect representatives who then vote on policy.
This is a key feature of representative democracies and is a key part in limiting and controlling the excesses of the majority.

Referendums are useful in certain situations and can be used to create a more hybrid form of democracy and for fundamental questions of importance to all citizens belong the authority of our representatives to decide, an example is the Quebec referendums on sovereignty.

All this to say that in Canada, what 50% + 1 of the Canadian population want does not equal anything.  We are not a direct democracy.
Now the argument can be made that our politicians don't act like statesmen and don't do anything but go where the wind blows them, when they should be shaping and steering a consensus but that's a separate discussion.

 

[Donald H]

I don't think everyone understands the meaning of democracy. Respectfully, I don't think it means what you think it does to be honest.

Democracy is typically found in one of two forms. Either Direct Democracy or Representative Democracy.

Direct Democracy is exceedingly rare and exists in no nation state at this time although it exists in several regional forms such as Swiss Cantons. This is what you seem to be referring to when talking about majority rule ala everyone has a direct vote on policy.

The second more common form is Representative Democracy. This can take a multitude of sub forms, usually either some form of parliamentary or presidential democracy.
Canada, like the rest of the Commonwealth, is a Constitutional Monarchy with a parliamentary democracy.

Canadian's do not vote directly on any policy at the Federal or Provincial levels with the exception of when either level calls a referendum. We elect representatives who then vote on policy.
This is a key feature of representative democracies and is a key part in limiting and controlling the excesses of the majority.

Referendums are useful in certain situations and can be used to create a more hybrid form of democracy and for fundamental questions of importance to all citizens belong the authority of our representatives to decide, an example is the Quebec referendums on sovereignty.

All this to say that in Canada, what 50% + 1 of the Canadian population want does not equal anything.  We are not a direct democracy.
Now the argument can be made that our politicians don't act like statesmen and don't do anything but go where the wind blows them, when they should be shaping and steering a consensus but that's a separate discussion.

Ironically Fabius, you have posted exactly what I was thinking, and which I assumed everyone would be fully aware of. So if you're accusing me of thinking something else then why not try to elaborate? I think I made it pretty damn clear when I suggested that sometimes M.P.'s will choose to make decisions by themselves.

Fwiw, all Democracies I know of are a combination of 'Direct' and 'Representative' and I'm pretty happy to keep it that way. Regardless of whether the Conservatives form Canada's next government.