Gun Control in US and Canada
- Thread starter tincan
- Start date
Dave S
Active Member
Keep wiping your butt in the streets for all I care. Although I'm sure our "society" will frown on it. Keep buying those semi auto "muskets" so you can feel safe. Keep calling me an uninformed citizen. Discussing gun laws with gun enthusiast is pointless. If it was your boy who was shot and killed, would you still be singing the same tune? If your boy was caught playing in the back forty with his friends dads ar15, you telling me that its all good? It's just a modern day musket after all. It's scary that you believe everything that slide show had to say.
Quote from Dave S---"
I don't know about you, but I like living in a country where we have rules and laws to prevent everyone from running around doing whatever the f@ck they want."
How are those laws workin out re: Native hyway and railway blockades for ya! Try having a protest in front of a native casino and see how quick you find the back seat of an RCMP cruiser---the laws are for everyone, but everyone doesn't have to obey them I figure!
I don't know about you, but I like living in a country where we have rules and laws to prevent everyone from running around doing whatever the f@ck they want."
How are those laws workin out re: Native hyway and railway blockades for ya! Try having a protest in front of a native casino and see how quick you find the back seat of an RCMP cruiser---the laws are for everyone, but everyone doesn't have to obey them I figure!
IronNoggin
Well-Known Member
There are countless designs of semi automatic firearms that are perfectly Legal in Canada. The vast majority of those that are now classified as "Restricted" and/or "Banned" collected that label based almost entirely on "Cosmetics" - as in how they look. NOT how they function as you stated in your most previous post.
And by stating that (along with several other erroneous statements through this thread) you have actually proven the point that you are indeed "an uninformed citizen". Might be an idea to do a little homework on the issue rather than posting based upon your personal emotion and prejudice methinks.
And from personal experience, I can readily inform you that discussing gun laws with anti-gun enthusiasts is an exercise in futility. The vast majority are uninformed, ignorant to the real issues at hand, and damn near rabid in their "righteousness" and "zeal" to do away with any form of firearm they deem "menacing". Many of your postings here lean towards that tendency.
Canada has firmly entrenched Legislation regarding firearms ownership, use and storage. As many "gun enthusiasts" have noted in this thread, the vast majority of our Laws are more than agreeable to those who own guns. There are however exceptions, one of which is refers to the Banning of certain firearms due solely to their resemblance to military hardware. Case in point - the AR-15 is No More Lethal than your every day Ranch Rifle (amongst many other legal rifles in Canada). But the AR-15 is banned simply based on it's LOOKS.
I have operated an AR-15 on many occasions back in the day when they were not so classified. They made one of The Best coyote rifles out there. And they are no more "menacing" than the M1 Garand of which I owned several. In fact, the Garand (still quite legal as it LOOKS more like what many consider a "regular" rifle) is actually more "lethal" as it shoots a heavier bullet (30-06 as apposed to a 223) yet still has the same semi-automatic function. As does the Ranch Rifle. As does a great many other rifles & shotguns that are all perfectly legal here, and are well proven in both the hunting and sporting arenas.
Personally I am not all that fond of the M16 lookalikes, far preferring the smooth lines and look of high end "traditional" sporters. But that said, I would own an AR-15 solely for the purpose of coyote hunting. They function Extremely Well in that pursuit, almost as if they were designed for it. And I downright detest the categorization of firearms when that is based on their "Looks". Waste of time & energy IMHO.
In Canada we do NOT have access to "Military Grade" firearms. NEVER going to happen. Full auto's I very much believe do not belong in the hands of the average citizen. Nor do armor-piercing bullets. Nor do hollow point bullets for handguns. And the list marches on. We are well regulated in that aspect. However, and Again, restrictions based on cosmetics is simply buying into the Fear Mongering purposefully introduced and supported by the Ban Them All crowd.
Again with the rhetoric. In Canada Safe Storage Laws are on the books explicitly to prevent this type of scenario from occurring. ALL firearms MUST be under secure lock and key. It would take a conscious decision to disregard Federal Legislation for his boy to be playing with ANY firearm unsupervised. That includes everything from 22's through the mighty 450 Nitro Express. All of which by the way can be considered "modern day muskets".
It's actually a LOT more "scary" that you buy in to the type of spin & drivel constantly spouted by the anti-gun crowd without doing much in the way of research or actual Personal Thinking on the subject at hand. A classic representation of just how easy it is for the anti's to brainwash the masses as well as they do IMO.
I find it somewhat strange for the intense focus on "menacing looking" erroneously labeled "assault rifles" at this juncture. The obviously insane fellow who perpetrated the violence against those unfortunate school children had one alright - IN HIS CAR! His "weapon of choice" was a couple of handguns. But the masses once again choose to vilify rifles they do not care for the looks of. Wise choice actually if you're simply looking at the "assault weapons" ban as a first step to removing them all from society methinks.
Personally I appose private ownership of REAL Military Grade weapons (machine guns that is - the ones that actually are "assault weapons"). And I agree with the vast majority of Canadian Restrictions regarding projectile types (armor piercing, tracers, fleshettes, handgun hollow points etc) and magazine restrictions (although in my personal view this does but little to dissuade a madman from inflicting equal damage by carrying multiple clips). But the restriction and banning based on someone's perception of how a firearm looks... not so much...
As for the US, that is an entirely different matter than Canada regarding firearm control. Theirs is a culture based a lot more on gun culture than ours. With the millions upon millions already in circulation south of The Line, it is going to be Damn Tough to instill any meaningful form of control for a considerably long period of time. Certainly required though IMHO, and something I do hope they can wrap their collective minds around initiating soon...
Cheers,
Nog
Last edited by a moderator:
Seafever
Well-Known Member
GunSmith:- well I looked up the battle of Athens 1946 in Wiki.......and it makes a good case for the public owning guns.
What kind of guns they were using is not clear.
Profisher:- Yep, 37 pages and no end in sight. And that's just on this site. Multiply it by the entire population of the States and Canada and it becomes apparent that the argument could continue on unabated forever with neither side backing down.
It probably will go on and on.
So I guess I'll just resign myself to the fact that mass shootings every other two weeks are just unavoidable collateral damage from the price of freedom. Kids,women,fathers, relatives,victims,.........they'll just have to "suck it up" as part of daily life.
Doesn't look like anything is going to change.
What kind of guns they were using is not clear.
Profisher:- Yep, 37 pages and no end in sight. And that's just on this site. Multiply it by the entire population of the States and Canada and it becomes apparent that the argument could continue on unabated forever with neither side backing down.
It probably will go on and on.
So I guess I'll just resign myself to the fact that mass shootings every other two weeks are just unavoidable collateral damage from the price of freedom. Kids,women,fathers, relatives,victims,.........they'll just have to "suck it up" as part of daily life.
Doesn't look like anything is going to change.
Seafever
Well-Known Member
The "Musket" references are pretty lame IMO. It implies that a Musket is basically a simple weapon which is o.k. because it only fires one shot.
Take a good look at some of those early weapons (and especially ones they used in the civil war).They may not fire a big volume of bullets simultaneously.......but the bullets that did hit you would do a lot of damage.
Many of them (muskets included) were large caliber weapons using ball slugs. The British army knew how to set up staggered squares of musketmen, so that while some were reloading others were firing at the same time continuously. A continuous fusilade with single-shot weapons.......the birth of the machine gun ideology.
If you get hit by one 9mm Glock bullet in the shoulder today using standard ammo there is a good chance you will regain use of your shoulder.
Get hit in the same place by a musket ball at normal range and you will not be using your shoulder again because it will be blown off.
The early guns , although not voluminous, could cause catastrophic damage from the simplest of shots because of the slug design and caliber, which were large.
They are just as dangerous as the weapons of today in terms of kill power.
Automatic weapons were invented to "up the ante". Not many people are crack shots. So they need a weapon where if it throws enough lead at you some of it will stick.
I watched a t'v. show once where they were comparing the .303 Enfield result to today's automatic assault weapons, shooting at watermelons.
The assault weapon slugs went right through the watermelon leaving a neat little hole.
The .303 bullet absolutely atomized the watermelon leaving nothing.
(Chuckle,chuckle.....yep, you never know when you are going to run into a nutball watermelon.....but seriously for comparison's sake.......)
I'm sure back in the 1700's there were those musket owners who were fooling around with different powder loads and concoctions to get even more fire power just like gunowners do today.
Back in the early sixties nobody gave a crap about gun control on the North American continent.
They were too busy worrying about being nuclear-bombed by Russia and building backyard bombshelters.
But the AK47 has been around since the Second World War.
Now the "fear d'jour" is guns.
Take a good look at some of those early weapons (and especially ones they used in the civil war).They may not fire a big volume of bullets simultaneously.......but the bullets that did hit you would do a lot of damage.
Many of them (muskets included) were large caliber weapons using ball slugs. The British army knew how to set up staggered squares of musketmen, so that while some were reloading others were firing at the same time continuously. A continuous fusilade with single-shot weapons.......the birth of the machine gun ideology.
If you get hit by one 9mm Glock bullet in the shoulder today using standard ammo there is a good chance you will regain use of your shoulder.
Get hit in the same place by a musket ball at normal range and you will not be using your shoulder again because it will be blown off.
The early guns , although not voluminous, could cause catastrophic damage from the simplest of shots because of the slug design and caliber, which were large.
They are just as dangerous as the weapons of today in terms of kill power.
Automatic weapons were invented to "up the ante". Not many people are crack shots. So they need a weapon where if it throws enough lead at you some of it will stick.
I watched a t'v. show once where they were comparing the .303 Enfield result to today's automatic assault weapons, shooting at watermelons.
The assault weapon slugs went right through the watermelon leaving a neat little hole.
The .303 bullet absolutely atomized the watermelon leaving nothing.
(Chuckle,chuckle.....yep, you never know when you are going to run into a nutball watermelon.....but seriously for comparison's sake.......)
I'm sure back in the 1700's there were those musket owners who were fooling around with different powder loads and concoctions to get even more fire power just like gunowners do today.
Back in the early sixties nobody gave a crap about gun control on the North American continent.
They were too busy worrying about being nuclear-bombed by Russia and building backyard bombshelters.
But the AK47 has been around since the Second World War.
Now the "fear d'jour" is guns.
Last edited by a moderator:
Gunsmith
Well-Known Member
Some were Garands and some were Enfields, probably the P-14 which was a bolt action "ASSAULT" rifle. Probably some .45 autos also as these were took from the local armory.
actually, that sounds like the NRA promoting fear.
trying to ban a firearm on looks was proven futile the last time around. simply banning semi-automatic long guns, with some exceptions for rifles typically used for hunting or plunking, would stand a chance of being clearly defined.
there are some fine examples of hunting rifles chambered for the .223 cartridge is hunting is your aim.
watch some historic footage of the war in Vietnam. you will note 10 round magazines were the standard back then and perfectly effective for the armed forces. no one needs a 15 round magazine or a 40 round magazine for their glock.
Seafever
Well-Known Member
Not sure I buy the argument that having all fire-arms stored safely in a case with only the owner having the key is going to guarantee anybody's safety.
If one has a son or daughter (or wife) that goes "postal" one day for any type of reason (and it does happen in society quite frequently) they can break into a guncase pretty easy if the owner isn't around.
In the latest Bond film, they came up with a gun that can only be fired by the person who's palm print it recognizes and no other. That's at least a plausible invention for consideration.
There are dozens and dozens of murders on record accounting seemingly normal responsible people , who, after going through some aggravating tribulation, finally snap and kill their (fill in the blank).
Human beings are not nice people regardless of their sanctimonious crap. Throughout history from day one there has nothing but killing , wars and murders by all races. Abominations of all sorts. Tortures of all sorts.
If anyone is accused of being apathetical these days, I don't blame them for being so. There is simply so much war and death on the news , it's hard to give a damn about any of it as long as it isn't us.
I imagine back before guns were around there were a lot of folks who wanted the Long Bow banned.
If one has a son or daughter (or wife) that goes "postal" one day for any type of reason (and it does happen in society quite frequently) they can break into a guncase pretty easy if the owner isn't around.
In the latest Bond film, they came up with a gun that can only be fired by the person who's palm print it recognizes and no other. That's at least a plausible invention for consideration.
There are dozens and dozens of murders on record accounting seemingly normal responsible people , who, after going through some aggravating tribulation, finally snap and kill their (fill in the blank).
Human beings are not nice people regardless of their sanctimonious crap. Throughout history from day one there has nothing but killing , wars and murders by all races. Abominations of all sorts. Tortures of all sorts.
If anyone is accused of being apathetical these days, I don't blame them for being so. There is simply so much war and death on the news , it's hard to give a damn about any of it as long as it isn't us.
I imagine back before guns were around there were a lot of folks who wanted the Long Bow banned.
Gunsmith
Well-Known Member
The thirty round agazine on the AK-47 motivated the American soldier to tape two magazines en to end to decrease loading time against the superior firepower of the AK-47.
Actully 20 round magazines were the norm ,not 10 round.
Actully 20 round magazines were the norm ,not 10 round.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sharphooks
Well-Known Member
The NRA is down on the linoleum wishing and praying that Obama and Biden go after an assault rifle ban. That's why they drag AR-15's across the table like a chunk of dripping red meat, hoping the politicians will take the bait. Calling an AR-15 a "modern musket" is just their way of smearing the meat with smelly jelly.
Why? It's a red herring-- they know if they sow enough fear and loathing and bombast about assault weapons the politicians will go after an AR ban and in so doing, it will be dead on arrival once it arrives on a Congressional desk.
And the NRA will quietly go back to doing what they do best---selling guns, (and blessing their good fortunes because they just dodged a huge silver bullet--the institution of background checks and government instituted data banks that will not only track gun ownership but will investigate felony records and potential mental health issues, the two variables that could very definitely have a negative impact on gun sales.
Modern musket. Sort of like referring to a 50 fathom monofilament gill net as a modern dip net.
Why? It's a red herring-- they know if they sow enough fear and loathing and bombast about assault weapons the politicians will go after an AR ban and in so doing, it will be dead on arrival once it arrives on a Congressional desk.
And the NRA will quietly go back to doing what they do best---selling guns, (and blessing their good fortunes because they just dodged a huge silver bullet--the institution of background checks and government instituted data banks that will not only track gun ownership but will investigate felony records and potential mental health issues, the two variables that could very definitely have a negative impact on gun sales.
Modern musket. Sort of like referring to a 50 fathom monofilament gill net as a modern dip net.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dave S
Active Member
Gunsmith
Well-Known Member
How does it feel to realize you wasted your time?
Last edited by a moderator:
Big Green Machine
Well-Known Member
The parents of the victims of Newtown got together today and and some of them are gun owners. They seem realistic and open minded in their approach to wanting to open up a rational debate about strategies to curb guns that can do a lot of damage in a short period of time. They also know that the debate is so polarized that it will take more than changing laws to do some good.
