The Great Gun Control Debate

[Fishbone Jones]

I think it comes down the purpose types of guns. A semi-auto .223 AR-15 or look alike is an assult rifle, there is no reason a person in civilian population needs to own that IMHO.  If its target shooting you want to do then a bolt action is just fine.

As well don't use the "scary black guns" routine on me pal.  I am or have qualified on C7, C9, C6, 9mm, 870, MP5, Sig Sauer, Carl G and M72.  I understand and appreciate the purpose of "scary black guns".  They are for LEO and Military to carry out their duties.  If you want to own one then go for it but in my opinion they should be illegal for civilian population. 

I see a difference between my Remington .308 and a AR type rifle or a hand gun.

It is not. You obviously know not of what you speak.

Absolutely wrong on that point and not even marignally close on other points.

Anti gun\ fudd fail!

There's a large part of our problem right there.

People that don't know what they are talking about, trying to make laws and tell honest, law abiding citizens what they can have and what they can do

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I actually agree with most of your points.  If you read my original post this thread you will notice I also don't think guns cause violence,  I believe that all crime is a socioeconomic problem and guns are simply the preferred tool of some criminals. 

I also state that I think out current laws are just fine and I don't think there are any changes coming soon.  BUT if changes do come I said what I see as reasonable.

I would like to see the stats on crimes committed using an assault rifle VS hand gun VS bolt action rifle.  As well as the live lost using the same paramaters.  Maybe I'm wrong but I suspect the hand guns and assault rifles would be the worse off in those stats.

You'd be extremely disappointed. Very few crimes are committed with true assault rifles.

More crimes are committed with hunting shotguns than with any type of semi automatic rifles.

Ready to lose your hunting shotgun?

 

[GnyHwy]

Although Halifax may not be technically correct, I believe he is on to something.  The types of rifles he is speaking of do have appeal for the wrong reasons, and anyone who has enough $$$ and the desire will buy one; even it it is a crappy rifle.  These persons are after intimidation and shock factor, and not actual capability.

True sportsmen will buy a rifle that meets their needs, and maybe a flashy one if they feel like it.  Others, who are less educated and wish to intimidate, will but the "scary" ones.  Perception of lethality is important, especially with the uneducated.  It only takes one generation of morons to put the rifle in the wrong hands. 

Lastly, I do understand and acknowledge the need of law abiding gun owners to draw the line somewhere for their own rights, and yes, I am glad that there is good guys with guns.

 

[GnyHwy]

You'd be extremely disappointed. Very few crimes are committed with true assault rifles.

Thank goodness that true assualt rifles are controlled.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Although Halifax may not be technically correct, I believe he is on to something.  The types of rifles he is speaking of do have appeal for the wrong reasons, and anyone who has enough $$$ and the desire will buy one; even it it is a crappy rifle.  These persons are after intimidation and shock factor, and not actual capability.

True sportsmen will buy a rifle that meets their needs, and maybe a flashy one if they feel like it.  Others, who are less educated and wish to intimidate, will but the "scary" ones.  Perception of lethality is important, especially with the uneducated.  It only takes one generation of morons to put the rifle in the wrong hands. 

Lastly, I do understand and acknowledge the need of law abiding gun owners to draw the line somewhere for their own rights, and yes, I am glad that there is good guys with guns.

Really? No. really?

I happen to own a number of, what you anti gun types call, 'scary black guns'.

What are you accusing me of?

I'm not a 'true' sportsman? Bullshit!

I have a need to 'intimidate and shock' people?

Your arse is sucking wind.

 

[GnyHwy]

Nothing.  Pay attenion to para 2, sentence 1, and para 3 complete.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Nothing.  Pay attenion to para 2, sentence 1, and para 3 complete.

Your whole point hinges on para 1.

2 & 3 are fluff to hide intent.

 

[NavyShooter]

There are a few (very few, like less than 5,000) machine guns in private hands in Canada.  Those are, and have been owned by people since at least 1978, and there has been no single instance of a legally owned machine gun being used in a crime in Canada.

And yet, the regulations applied to those firearms (and their owners) have tightened, and tightened and tightened over the years to the point now that you are no longer allowed to take them to a shooting range to fire them anymore. 

One would think that these dangerous weapons would somehow be the most popular amongst criminals....and yet, they are not.  In fact, completely the opposite.  The people who own them (and continue to own them) are amongst the most law abiding members of our society.  If guns somehow make people bad, then why has there been no a single incident with ANY of these people....

Is it possible that the guns don't make people do bad things?  Especially when not one of these guns has hurt anyone in 35 years???

Guns are not the problem, and pointing the finger at my handgun, recce's black guns, or any of the inanimate objects is NOT the solution.  If guns caused crime....explain how 5000 machine-guns have caused NONE in 35+ years?

As was mentioned, it's a socio-economic issue, mostly related to gangs, criminals, and drugs. 

If there's a measure raised to punish criminal misuse of firearms, I'm for it.

The firearms act as written is 95% aimed at regulating the legal firearms owners...and barely 5% towards the criminal misuse of firearms. 

Why has it failed to successfully address criminal misuse of firearms?  Because that's NOT who it's aimed to control. 

NS

(As a followup, the 95% is so poorly written that...um...was it 8 of the provinces got together to challenge the constitutionality of it a few years ago?  And the 5% aimed at criminals is often the first charge plea-bargained away....so what good has this monstrosity brought us besides a waste of money, and time.)

 

[GnyHwy]

Your whole point hinges on para 1.

2 & 3 are fluff to hide intent.

If that is true, then I will leave para 2 and 3 out, and just focus on what I said in para 1.  Eventhough, I think para 2 and 3 substantiate my commnets in para 1.

Para 1

Although Halifax may not be technically correct, I believe he is on to something.  The types of rifles he is speaking of do have appeal for the wrong reasons, and anyone who has enough $$$ and the desire will buy one; even it it is a crappy rifle.  These persons are after intimidation and shock factor, and not actual capability.

The persons who have committed these recent crimes were uneducated assholes.  The one common thing they have is that they have nothing to live for, and are hell bent on showing everyone.  They are going to die one way or another and they want their 30 min of fame.

Do you think the persons who have committed these crimes would have done them if they had a 100 year old Winchester?

Do you think they would have tried it with a pistol?

Perhaps I am too much of an optimist, but I do believe that we can stop the senseless violence, and let law abiding citizens keep their toys.  If you don't think we can, than that only supports the argument of the anti-gun persons.

Bring some realistic solutions, other than doing nothing, and other than protecting the gun owners that can already protect themselves.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Although Halifax may not be technically correct, I believe he is on to something.  The types of rifles he is speaking of do have appeal for the wrong reasons, and anyone who has enough $$$ and the desire will buy one; even it it is a crappy rifle.  These persons are after intimidation and shock factor, and not actual capability.

Read your own words.

You are not saying criminals, ne'er do wells, gangbangers, lunatics, sprts shooters or collectors.

You said ANYONE. That would include me and thousands of other law abiding owners in Canada.

 

[Jed]

If that is true, then I will leave para 2 and 3 out, and just focus on what I said in para 1.  Eventhough, I think para 2 and 3 substantiate my commnets in para 1.

Para 1
The persons who have committed these recent crimes were uneducated assholes.  The one common thing they have is that they have nothing to live for, and are hell bent on showing everyone.  They are going to die one way or another and they want their 30 min of fame.

Do you think the persons who have committed these crimes would have done them if they had a 100 year old Winchester?

Do you think they would have tried it with a pistol?
Perhaps I am too much of an optimist, but I do believe that we can stop the senseless violence, and let law abiding citizens keep their toys.  If you don't think we can, than that only supports the argument of the anti-gun persons.

Bring some realistic solutions, other than doing nothing, and other than protecting the gun owners that can already protect themselves.

Yes, I believe the misguided nutbars will use whatever is available. The media of the day, and to some extent, current folklore, may influence their choice of a tool. If it is not a scary black gun it will be a ferocious sharp machete or fertilizer / diesel fuel explosives.

I am not usually a do nothing kind of a person, but in this case where ' no constructive options' are apparent with respect to solving the problem with gun controls, that is the proper COA.

Fix the nutbar problem using some other socioeconomic means.

 

[Halifax Tar]

It is not. You obviously know not of what you speak.

Absolutely wrong on that point and not even marignally close on other points.

Anti gun\ fudd fail!

There's a large part of our problem right there.

People that don't know what they are talking about, trying to make laws and tell honest, law abiding citizens what they can have and what they can do

If it smells like a fish looks like a fish and acts like a fish your going to tell me its a pick up truck then aren't you ? 

Disagree with me all you want, jump up and down pull your hair out and cry the sky is falling but this law abiding gun owner does not understand why civilian people or people in a civilian context need a look a like assault rifle, even if it is only semi-auto.  If its simply because you want to that is no defense and defiantly not good enough for this law abiding tax payer to support your side of the coin.

If it comes down in law that my hunting shot gun is too dangerous for me to own then so be it, my gun(s) do not make me.  I will turn it in, because my ABILITY to own this firearm does not out way the safety of the people of this nation.   

 

[Halifax Tar]

Sawed off shotguns are most likely the wpn of choice. Easy to get and if you pull the mag plug, easy to increase the capacity. In Canada anyway, pistols and SMGs are by far illegally obtained if they are being used. It goes without saying,  law abiding gun owners are very reluctant to have any of their wpns used indiscriminately.

I think you may be wrong.  I would say the majority of gun crimes in Canada are commited with illegal, smuggled or stolen pistols.  Again I would like to see the stats.

 

[GnyHwy]

Read your own words.

You are not saying criminals, ne'er do wells, gangbangers, lunatics, sprts shooters or collectors.

You said ANYONE. That would include me and thousands of other law abiding owners in Canada.

Well that is quite typical.  Drag the debate on, skirt the real issues, and focus on the semantics that you darn well that I wasn't implying.  At this rate, I am guessing that within the next 3 posts you are going to state that I was accusing you of being a gangbanger? 

The same semantics that you are using for your argument are the same ones that you refuse to listen to when it comes to refining gun laws.  I am being led to believe that you think that any refinement to gun laws is a bad thing, when I believe they are not.  Defining the assholes and their likes and dislikes is a good start.

Eventhough I believe that these douchebags (the ones committing crimes and not you Recce) are attracted to "scary" guns, I can agree with you that abolishing them won't stop them, but in the same sense, I believe it does slow them down, or at least take away their LCF, which is all they are really after.

Why do "sportsman" need a "sort of" assault rifle anyway?  Any real shooter knows they are sub par.

What are they deficient of?  LCF?


Sometimes I wish I didn't jump into these things.  But... here I am.  :nod:

Edited to add:  We avoid religious debates for obvious reasons.  Perhaps we should avoid this one for the same reasons (immovable opinions). 

 

[Halifax Tar]

Halifax Tar, in your opinion as a member of the Navy and being exposed to boarding parties, how dangerous are pump action shotguns in confined spaces like small rooms and narrow corridors?

If you wanted to get to someone and they were barricaded behind a door, say one you might find in a school, which would allow you to get into that room easier?  A semi-automatic 5.56mm assault rifle or a shotgun (capable of firing 1oz slugs).

In your opinion as someone who has been exposed to firearms, which would make a more deadly weapon in the hands of an inexperienced shooter at close range. A shotgun or ar 15?

1)  Shotguns are very dangerous in confined spaces like small rooms and narrow corridors.

2)  Shotguns would normally be used for breaching the door with follow on team members using ARs, Sidearms or SMGs.  A shot gun is not effective in room clearing especially if you suspect hostages are present.

3)  Which on would be better at medium rage ?  Say for instance the door or window of school out into the parking lot or approaching walk way ?  We can red herring this to death, perhaps we have.

 

[Jed]

I think you may be wrong.  I would say the majority of gun crimes in Canada are commited with illegal, smuggled or stolen pistols.  Again I would like to see the stats.

No I am not wrong. The stats are there but you seem to be refusing to acknowledge them anyway. You will not admit this but NS is correct, you are selling out your brother lawful gun owner. How does it feel to take a 'Neville Chamberlain' approach?

 

[Halifax Tar]

Eventhough I believe that these douchebags (the ones committing crimes and not you Recce) are attracted to "scary" guns, I can agree with you that abolishing them won't stop them, but in the same sense, I believe it does slow them down, or at least take away their LCF, which is all they are really after.

Why do "sportsman" need a "sort of" assault rifle anyway?  Any real shooter knows they are sub par.

What are they deficient of?  LCF?

I think you just articulated my point exactly, for that I thank you.

 

[Halifax Tar]

No I am not wrong. The stats are there but you seem to be refusing to acknowledge them anyway. You will not admit this but NS is correct, you are selling out your brother lawful gun owner. How does it feel to take a 'Neville Chamberlain' approach?

What stats ?  I havent seen any stats yet.  Are the produced in this thread somewhere ?  If I missed them please let me see them.  Do you have a link ?  Once I get home I will do some more research as well.

 

[ballz]

If its simply because you want to that is no defense and defiantly not good enough for this law abiding tax payer to support your side of the coin. 

DEFENSE??? You want to take away people's freedom, YOU provide the reason, not the other way around. You don't just decide "I want to take away this this and that," and then argue "now tell me why I shouldn't?"

You don't NEED a car, and those are killing far more people than firearms.

No free man in a free country should have justify why he wants something. The shoe is on the other foot to justify why that freedom should not exist.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Why do mass shooters use assault rifles?

When someone does a mass shooting the type of weapon is usually thrust into the spotlight by the media. The Tornado assault rifle.  The media get people riled up talking about tornado assault rifles and bushmasters and glocks and storms. "Why does anyone even NEED a Tornado ASSAULT rifle"

These types of guns cause controversy, especially with people who aren't very gun savvy.
When some idiot decides he wants to kill himself but not before killing a bunch of innocent people they gravitate towards buying one of these emotionally charged brand names like AR or Glock.  They don't care so much for the rate of fire or how fast you can reload them or even if it's actually a shitty weapon.  They buy them because they;ve been made to look scary. They feel the weapons are empowering and will cause maxium shock value.

A tangent but stick with me.
When Batman came out people went ninjitsu mad. Because batman studied ninjitsu all of a sudden all these kids were joining martial arts forum with a boner for ninjitsu. 
I can't remember the name of it but when the latest batman came out it was mentioned that he studied a specific type of jujitsu- sure enough kids flocked to websites trying to learn more about Batmans martial art style- all because they wanted to emulate him.

I think the AR15-mass shooting correlation has a lot to do with soon to be shooters wanting to emulate the assholes who went on shooting sprees before them. They get off on the fear and negative feedback caused by these media driven weapon spotlights.

Kinda like how airsofters or leg humpers will want to use a specific type of firearm simply because their favorite special forces group uses the same type. 

People like us aren't looking to intimidate and shock people when we buy an AR15 . We buy it for the quality, ascetics, history, style.  We buy it because we know firearms and we like it. 

The little psychos who shoot people up buy them because they think it makes them scarier and will upset more people, which I blame the media for.


As I said, the number of mass shootings in Canada isn't very large OR with a high kill ratio.  The fatality rates per shooting fall within the magazine capacity of hunting rifles.(And lets be real, it takes a few seconds to reload). 
Hunting rifles are more accurate, made better,  have a longer range and more penetration than typical assault rifles.

"Why do you even need an assault rifle" isn't a valid question since outright banning them won't save lives. It's missing the bigger picture.