Contrary to popular belief

[bobnoorduyn]

Beat me to it, it just drives me nuts when so called experts cannot even get their terminology correct, (at least it was mildly better in the National Pest than in the Mop and Pail).

The other misrepresentation it comes to refering to "assault weapons". Canada placed the bushmaster and other C7/M16 lookalikes in the restricted category simply because of aesthetics even though they are functionally no different than the Ruger Mini14 used in the Montreal shooting, or most other semi-auto rifles chambered in .223 Rem.

Then comes the constant refrain, "I see no reason any citizen needs to own ______". Because they see no reason doesn't mean there isn't one. The problem with "reasonable limits" is that they become unreasonable limits when the reasonable ones are proven not to work, or work as intended, such as the firearm bans in Washington DC, Chicago, New York, etc. (Oddly, the Donald is permitted to pack). Reacting when emotions are high ends with bad laws.

 

[Nuggler]

Beat me to it, it just drives me nuts when so called experts cannot even get their terminology correct, (at least it was mildly better in the National Pest than in the Mop and Pail).

The other misrepresentation it comes to refering to "assault weapons". Canada placed the bushmaster and other C7/M16 lookalikes in the restricted category simply because of aesthetics even though they are functionally no different than the Ruger Mini14 used in the Montreal shooting, or most other semi-auto rifles chambered in .223 Rem.

Then comes the constant refrain, "I see no reason any citizen needs to own ______". Because they see no reason doesn't mean there isn't one. The problem with "reasonable limits" is that they become unreasonable limits when the reasonable ones are proven not to work, or work as intended, such as the firearm bans in Washington DC, Chicago, New York, etc. (Oddly, the Donald is permitted to pack). Reacting when emotions are high ends with bad laws.

Nope. and. Bullsh it.

Why anyone needs to own what's known as an "assault" rifle is beyond my tiny powers of logic. However, if your need is greater, go for it. Buy a big one with a big clip. There, now you're a man. Pecker just grew 5 inches, eh.

.223, if memory serves was designed for the Vietnam war, as the bullet tumbles, creating horrendous wounds. With a very fast rate of fire, it's designed to damage and kill PEOPLE. High velocity, small bullet, rips the hell out of everything..

Course, I could be wrong, and if so, I apologize.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

Then comes the constant refrain, "I see no reason any citizen needs to own ______". Because they see no reason doesn't mean there isn't one.

Really? Could you offer up a reason?

Reacting when emotions are high ends with bad laws.

On this I agree, any laws or changes should be well thought out. I think that there needs to be a serious discussion completely devoid of the usual soap box mentality from both sides. The Long Gun Registry was an over-reaction to the Montreal Massacre and cost the taxpayers a great deal while accomplishing very little, except slamming farmers and hunters with a new tax grab.

However, having handled fully auto, semi-auto and weaponry that has one aim (to inflict death upon an adversary) I still fall back to my position that there is no need for civilians to possess semi-automatic weaponry, which by the way can be converted to full auto if you have any aptitude regarding the mechanics of weapon.

I have always been a staunch supporter of our US neighbors to the South, never been the reactionary type, but it is obvious that certain groups have hijacked the intent of the Right to Bear Arms, simply because they can. The failing of this is that a women who had what appeared to be a mentally disturbed son was able to access those guns, had in fact practiced on a range with her permission, used these weapons to kill a bunch of kids which leads me back to my original position that a civilian does not need an arsenal of weaponry beyond rifles used to hunt or a handgun for personal protection or even target shooting.

As a retired Gunner who served in the Artillery I would love to own a mortar, some grenades, even a light artillery weapon, however there is no practical use for me to have any of these items and having them would only pose a risk that someone might use them for the purpose they were designed.

Too kill.

Full stop...

All the liberals line up and chant "gun control" as usual. The media uses the power of public insanity to their best descretion instantly.
Sadly there are few people actually thinking any more, or perhaps they have an agenda or are just stupid.
The right to bear arms was properly encroached in society in a very different way than is assumed at this time. I believe that bear made reference to it.
If the usual wimps manage to change the type of hand weapons allowed to suit their own dreaming we are lost.

I'm not a Liberal.

 

[DaSleeper]

And all this talk of an armed guard/teachers at the schools is bs as well. Chances of this happening again are minimal but unless the guard/teacher has an automatic weapon themself and was at the right spot at the right time, they would be taken out or at least substantial carnage would happen before he arrived on the scene...........

While the whole post made me shake my head in disbelief, this last part realy did it....an automatic weapon in a school setting in the hands of a teacher or other person who doesn't have the level of training that a tactical team member would have is asking for problems of collateral damage that you don't even want to think about.
I wouldn't say no to a revolver, even double action, specially loaded so that the projectile wouldn't penetrate a frame wall through and through or ricochet off a cement wall.
Regular retraining, and qualifying would also be a must

 

[skookumchuck]

Why does nobody want to retrain teachers? Because they can't?

 

[karrie]

I highly encourage everyone to go take a gander at this article about mass shootings.

The Facts about Mass Shootings - John Fund - National Review Online

It's an interesting counter balance to the current media inundation.

As for retraining teachers, etc.... I think the best thing schools can do right now is reinforce their lockdown drills. I know my kids' schools have been doing them for years.

 

[taxslave]

Nope. and. Bullsh it.

Why anyone needs to own what's known as an "assault" rifle is beyond my tiny powers of logic. However, if your need is greater, go for it. Buy a big one with a big clip. There, now you're a man. Pecker just grew 5 inches, eh.

.223, if memory serves was designed for the Vietnam war, as the bullet tumbles, creating horrendous wounds. With a very fast rate of fire, it's designed to damage and kill PEOPLE. High velocity, small bullet, rips the hell out of everything..

Course, I could be wrong, and if so, I apologize.

223 is an excellent sized hunting rifle for many species.
The only thing you got right is that no hunter really need more than 5 or 6 cartridge magazine.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Nope. and. Bullsh it.

Why anyone needs to own what's known as an "assault" rifle is beyond my tiny powers of logic. However, if your need is greater, go for it. Buy a big one with a big clip. There, now you're a man. Pecker just grew 5 inches, eh.

.223, if memory serves was designed for the Vietnam war, as the bullet tumbles, creating horrendous wounds. With a very fast rate of fire, it's designed to damage and kill PEOPLE. High velocity, small bullet, rips the hell out of everything..

Course, I could be wrong, and if so, I apologize.

So are you saying that every .223 semi-auto is an assault rifle? That would also make semi-autos in 30.06 assault rifles, because after all, it was a Springfield Arms re-design of the rimmed 30.03 as a rimless round that saw action in WW I. All rounds that fit a #2 shell holder are derivitives of the 30.06 design, including the .45ACP.

In fact, the .223 was designed not for creating horrendous wounds but for its light weight, which is why the Soviets designed the AK-74, another small calibre rifle. The bullets do not tumble, and they are FMJ to reduce horrendous wounds.

 

[skookumchuck]

So are you saying that every .223 semi-auto is an assault rifle? That would also make semi-autos in 30.06 assault rifles, because after all, it was a Springfield Arms re-design of the rimmed 30.03 as a rimless round that saw action in WW I. All rounds that fit a #2 shell holder are derivitives of the 30.06 design, including the .45ACP.

In fact, the .223 was designed not for creating horrendous wounds but for its light weight, which is why the Soviets designed the AK-74, another small calibre rifle. The bullets do not tumble, and they are FMJ to reduce horrendous wounds.

And this is what happens when one assumes a person knows what they are talking about. Thanks for clearing up the BS Bob.

 

[Locutus]

What of the little Ruger 10/22 with a 25 round magazine? Where does it end?

 

[skookumchuck]

What of the little Ruger 10/22 with a 25 round magazine? Where does it end?

My favorite all around .22!

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Really? Could you offer up a reason?

I think taxslave just did, I don't own one because they are too small a calibre for anything larger than coyotes in NS, but are very effective on deer and are legal in other jurisdictions. But it doesn't end there, there are those who say citizens have no reason to own pistols, because they can't think of any reason they would need one. Then there are those, like Allen Rock, who can think of no reason citizens should own firearms at all.

However, having handled fully auto, semi-auto and weaponry that has one aim (to inflict death upon an adversary) I still fall back to my position that there is no need for civilians to possess semi-automatic weaponry, which by the way can be converted to full auto if you have any aptitude regarding the mechanics of weapon.

You know then the usefulness of a semi auto, you don't have to take your eyes off your target if you miss or don't get a clean kill shot. I can shoot three birds without taking my finger off the trigger of my shotgun as well. As for the relative ease at making a semi auto into full auto, because it is possible is not grounds for banning them. The same could be said for owning a Ferrari, because they can go 200mph doesn't mean it is legal to do so, but we don't ban them either.

As a retired Gunner who served in the Artillery I would love to own a mortar, some grenades, even a light artillery weapon, however there is no practical use for me to have any of these items and having them would only pose a risk that someone might use them for the purpose they were designed.

Too kill.

Full stop...

I would just love to be able to afford to feed some of those things, but you are now talking about weapons of war, and explosives, none of which could be considered defensive except in battle. Aside from grenades, I don't have an issue with someone owning the things, some people do, the storage of ordnance may be an issue though, as well as where you might want to go and bang them off.

All weapons were designed to kill, it is what mankind has been doing forever. That is one thing that is not going to stop.

 

[DaSleeper]

All this talk about banning certain firearms seems to be a Christmas present for manufacturers:smile:

Gun sales spike in some states, while others stock up on armored backpacks - CSMonitor.com

 

[JLM]

This may excite some, but I believe that the latest shooting in CT is a definite reason for the US to look at limiting gun access to it's citizens. While I acknowledge that there are gun owners out there who are responsible, I see no reason for any civilian to own a semi automatic weapon. While I see nothing wrong with an individual citizen, who undergoes screening, owning a weapon for target shooting, home protection, or for hunting, I also think that the right to bear arms argument put forth by hardcore gun advocates is antiquated at best.

The children who died this week came as a result of an obviously disturbed young man getting access to weapons. This is a tragedy of epic proportion and sadly it was completely preventable. It is time for a discussion regarding two very serious issues, one is limiting access to firearms that serve no application for civilian use. No one outside the military, police department requires assault weapons. The second issue that needs to be looked at with a great deal of scrutiny is society's ignorance and indifference to mental health issues.

That's my take.

With regard to change of the laws (not just guns) I think there are a number of things that can be done to reduce the senseless killings- like definitely limiting machine guns and assault rifles, but the sad fact is the reduction of killing will only be marginal at best. Even if every single one was confiscated, what is to stop people building reasonable facsimiles in their basement? Short of being warehoused the criminal is always left with the final option. Added to that is the fact that mentally ill people are often very intelligent (and sneaky).

 

[Ron in Regina]

"What is an 'assault weapon' and what makes it so? How is one different
than any other firearm?"

There's lots of talk about banning something that I haven't seen clearly
described and defined here yet, so a layman like myself who doesn't
even pretend to know more about this than I do, can understand the
difference between the OK firearms and the ones that are not OK.
(the quotation mark 'Assault Rifles' quotation mark ???).

 

[#juan]

The looney kid who killed all those people in Conn. not only had access to a gun, he had access to a "wonderful"
choice of guns. The parents of this kid should have been locked up for not keeping the weapons safe.....a moot
point since he killed his mom first. Interesting that all the killings were done with a 223 cal. assault rifle rather than
the handguns that he also had with him.

All of these mass school killings are done by crazy kids who have access to guns. Which would be easier, removing
the access, or treating the mental health problems that obviously exist? It's not an easy question.

 

[Ron in Regina]

There doesn't seem to be one definition: Assault weapon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perhaps this might be the place to start, so that a debate about banning 'assault weapons'
leaves people debating the same thing.

???

???

???

 

[DaSleeper]

This friend of mine, a collector of military rifles, from the early 1900 to the present.
He's a batchelor so his house is just filled with guns
One that he sold just before Alan Roc brought out the new law was this baby.....
I fired it once in a gravel pit...It was fun, but the cost of them bullets is a bit much for fun shooting:lol:

 

[Ron in Regina]

$6 reloads 25yrs ago?

I remember the Canadian Military having a few that looked like that set up in the
hallway of the high school I went to on 'career days'.....

 

[Niflmir]

As a retired Gunner who served in the Artillery I would love to own a mortar, some grenades, even a light artillery weapon, however there is no practical use for me to have any of these items and having them would only pose a risk that someone might use them for the purpose they were designed.

At least you rationalize your view in what I see as the correct way, as the question, "Should I be prohibited from owning X."

I have problems with flat out prohibitions. To me, a person should be free to acquire these things in a setting which society deems as safe. Currently the only such setting is to be a member of the military, and I have the same problems with that as the drafters of the second amendment. I have no problem with strong regulations, if being forced to wear a helmet/seat belt doesn't infringe my right to movement, being forced to register more dangerous weapons doesn't infringe any property rights.

There is no reason why there cannot be special ranges where people go to shoot mortars or throw grenades after proper training, just like what is done for other dangerous sports like sky diving, mountain climbing, and so on. People like to feel clever and say things like, "Why not ban knives?" but we do; butterfly knives, switch blades, and throwing stars are flat out prohibited in Canada. The rationale being that their sole purpose is the killing of humans.

If we ban knives for those reasons (and I would relax such a ban and replace it with other stringent regulations) we should certainly give guns the same treatment. The amount of difficulty a citizen should face to legitimately use/possess a weapon should be proportional to its deadliness, intended use, training needed and other factors. This would make tank/bomb ownership only possible for the most extreme hobbyists and subject to a high degree of scrutiny.