Do You Support Ownership of FA (full auto) Firearms?

[shawn]

I'm getting the impression I'm the only one here who likes out firearms laws haha. I'm ok with that, I'm allowed to have my opinions as you are yours. We all like guns in the end! Please don't go accusing me of not basing my positions in the truth, as there are two sides to every discussion. I have not said "screw anyone", I've just said why I think it's a good idea to keep those particular restrictions. There is logic to what I'm saying, as there is to what others have said. Whether you choose to accept it is up to you, but don't discredit me with things I have not said.

You are not the only one. There are many people that believe in laws that do nothing and cost them millions to do it

I am sorry but you are not basing your position on the truth or the facts. You your self stated the 97% of firearms crime is from guns sourced illegally. Do you know what that means?

That 97% of the time current gun laws do nothing to prevent crime.

If you were basing your position on the facts or the truth you would not support something that 97% of the time has no effect. And on top of the cost tax payers millions of dollars a year for no return in either public safety or crime reduction. As for logic there is very little to be seen, it is not logical to support something that restricts the freedom of law abiding people, cost those same people millions of dollars a year all the while getting zero in return for that investment. Just so you can say look at me I followed this rule that did nothing to prevent crime.

Shawn

 

[fenceline]

I'm getting the impression I'm the only one here who likes out firearms laws haha. I'm ok with that, I'm allowed to have my opinions as you are yours. We all like guns in the end! Please don't go accusing me of not basing my positions in the truth, as there are two sides to every discussion. I have not said "screw anyone", I've just said why I think it's a good idea to keep those particular restrictions. There is logic to what I'm saying, as there is to what others have said. Whether you choose to accept it is up to you, but don't discredit me with things I have not said.

There are two sides, but there are never two sides to truth. And opinions are seldom fact. I believe you have been in the shooting community for at least a little while. From your posts you seem to have at least a basic understanding of the frt system. And you know of several laws around gun ownership. So obviously you have some thought or notions as to how things are or should be.

I will say this however. No matter what laws exist, criminals willing to use guns will care little about them. They won't care about needing a licence, or magazine capacities, or whether they are breaking 1 law or 10. The laws only serve to hinder legal ownership. They bind you and I. But they don't define us as law abiding. They just restrict us in what we do while abiding by those laws. There is a difference.

The law doesn't guide my conscience. If one needs laws to tell them how to be just, they have some serious character flaws.

 

[t-star]

define "assault rifle"- your lowly 22 could be an "assault rifle" my old remy 742 could be an assault rifle with an extended mag from ram-line- they sold thousands back in the day-a well practised rifleman could do far more with a 22 than any crook with a so- called "aassault rifle- if you really want to create havoc all you need is a few hockey sticks

 

[Ramblr]

You are not the only one. There are many people that believe in laws that do nothing and cost them millions to do it

I am sorry but you are not basing your position on the truth or the facts. You your self stated the 97% of firearms crime is from guns sourced illegally. Do you know what that means?

That 97% of the time current gun laws do nothing to prevent crime.

If you were basing your position on the facts or the truth you would not support something that 97% of the time has no effect. And on top of the cost tax payers millions of dollars a year for no return in either public safety or crime reduction. As for logic there is very little to be seen, it is not logical to support something that restricts the freedom of law abiding people, cost those same people millions of dollars a year all the while getting zero in return for that investment. Just so you can say look at me I followed this rule that did nothing to prevent crime.

Shawn

Or, our laws are so effective that legal firearms are not used to commit criminal acts 97% of the time. We need only look to the US to see the difference. Two ways of looking at it. That's all. I've done the research into gun crime in Canada vs the US, and their firearms related crime rate (per 100 000 people) is 5x higher and involves legally procured firearms about 90% of the time (varies from state to state). It's obvious Canada is doing SOMETHING right, as we have one of the lowest rates of gun crime in the world.

 

[shawn]

I also see we have differing opinions, and your opinions are based no more in fact than mine.

Except your position is based on the acceptable measure of a law is that you can say look I follow this law and not whether or not it actually effects crime or public safety in any way what so ever. And our position is based on the fact that there has been zero effect to the change in violent crime, firearms crime or in public safety since the enactment of these laws.

Lets use this mag thing as a point since you brought it up. Show me a single case from any where in Canada in the last 100 years where a crime was prevented or public safety was increase by a pistol mag only holding 10 rounds.

Shawn

 

[shawn]

Or, our laws are so effective that legal firearms are not used to commit criminal acts 97% of the time. We need only look to the US to see the difference. Two ways of looking at it. That's all. I've done the research into gun crime in Canada vs the US, and their firearms related crime rate (per 100 000 people) is 5x higher and involves legally procured firearms about 90% of the time (varies from state to state). It's obvious Canada is doing SOMETHING right, as we have one of the lowest rates of gun crime in the world.

I am glad you brought this up, time to put your money where your mouth is, post up the stats and the sources and it will prove you wrong yet again

Shawn

 

[Ramblr]

There are two sides, but there are never two sides to truth. And opinions are seldom fact. I believe you have been in the shooting community for at least a little while. From your posts you seem to have at least a basic understanding of the frt system. And you know of several laws around gun ownership. So obviously you have some thought or notions as to how things are or should be.

I will say this however. No matter what laws exist, criminals willing to use guns will care little about them. They won't care about needing a licence, or magazine capacities, or whether they are breaking 1 law or 10. The laws only serve to hinder legal ownership. They bind you and I. But they don't define us as law abiding. They just restrict us in what we do while abiding by those laws. There is a difference.

The law doesn't guide my conscience. If one needs laws to tell them how to be just, they have some serious character flaws.

Let me try this one more time, building off what you are saying. For the purposes of not demonizing ourselves at this present time, the current laws serve to distinguish legal owners from criminals. I am not saying that, perhaps at some future date, we could relax said laws. You are right, and I have often made that point myself. Criminals will procure firearms no matter what. We could have a complete ban and they would still get them. That is where "gun control" ends and "security measures" (eg, giving the police the means to properly handle an active shooter) kick in. I just really don't think that, especially under a Liberal government, now is the time to try to make a move. It's going to be a "war" of attrition for the next 5 years at least. Time to hunker down and ride the storm, proving to the public that we are not the problem. Does that click a little better with you guys?

As for me, personally, yes I've been around for a while, I'm just new to the forums and new to being in my 20's. I've been shooting since I was about 12, and it all started in cadets. Man, oh man, are C7s fun And I do try to keep up to date

 

[fenceline]

Or, our laws are so effective that legal firearms are not used to commit criminal acts 97% of the time. We need only look to the US to see the difference. Two ways of looking at it. That's all. I've done the research into gun crime in Canada vs the US, and their firearms related crime rate (per 100 000 people) is 5x higher and involves legally procured firearms about 90% of the time (varies from state to state). It's obvious Canada is doing SOMETHING right, as we have one of the lowest rates of gun crime in the world.

Illegal firearms? All guns being used in crime are illegal. If they are being used in a crime, the simple act of having a gun there makes possession illegal as it is possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose. You stat doesn't make sense.

 

[fenceline]

Let me try this one more time, building off what you are saying. For the purposes of not demonizing ourselves at this present time, the current laws serve to distinguish legal owners from criminals. I am not saying that, perhaps at some future date, we could relax said laws. You are right, and I have often made that point myself. Criminals will procure firearms no matter what. We could have a complete ban and they would still get them. That is where "gun control" ends and "security measures" (eg, giving the police the means to properly handle an active shooter) kick in. I just really don't think that, especially under a Liberal government, now is the time to try to make a move. It's going to be a "war" of attrition for the next 5 years at least. Time to hunker down and ride the storm, proving to the public that we are not the problem. Does that click a little better with you guys?

As for me, personally, yes I've been around for a while, I'm just new to the forums and new to being in my 20's. I've been shooting since I was about 12, and it all started in cadets. Man, oh man, are C7s fun And I do try to keep up to date

Again, what distinguishes a law abiding citizen from a criminal is their willingness or disregard to following laws, be moral, and gave integrity.

If mag capacity laws disappeared tomorrow, would that change who I was as a person?

Laws don't define me. My integrity and morals do.

 

[shawn]

Look at the OP this thread is from 2012 no one is trying to make a move

Shawn

 

[Ramblr]

define "assault rifle"- your lowly 22 could be an "assault rifle" my old remy 742 could be an assault rifle with an extended mag from ram-line- they sold thousands back in the day-a well practised rifleman could do far more with a 22 than any crook with a so- called "aassault rifle- if you really want to create havoc all you need is a few hockey sticks

Assault Rilfe: Generally defined as a selective fire combat rifle chambered in a mid-caliber round (vs. "Battle Rifle" chambered in a full size rifle round). More broadly, people think it's anything that isn't a shotgun... Sigh... I really don't like the term "assault weapon"... There really isn't such a thing, unless of course you use a weapon for an assault. My computer could be an assault weapon if i hit someone with it... Assault rifle, sure, assault weapon, no. Though we should change it to "rainbow rifle", then maybe we could have some. As an aside, I saw a police picture where they listed a KSG 12 as a "fully automatic"... Would LOVE to see how to make a pump action fire full auto! God, one of the reasons I take pride in my wide knowledge of firearms is because I want to be a cop. Like, that kind of cop who knows what guns are and doesn't blow a gasket over them if they look "scary"

 

[Ramblr]

Illegal firearms? All guns being used in crime are illegal. If they are being used in a crime, the simple act of having a gun there makes possession illegal as it is possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose. You stat doesn't make sense.

Illegal being procured through illegal means, or types firearms citizens simply are not permitted to own. Legal obviously the opposite.

 

[shawn]

So are you going to post up your stats?

Especially the one about 90% of guns used in crime being legally procured. As is the person who committed the crime legally acquired the gun.

Shawn

 

[Ramblr]

Again, what distinguishes a law abiding citizen from a criminal is their willingness or disregard to following laws, be moral, and gave integrity.

If mag capacity laws disappeared tomorrow, would that change who I was as a person?

Laws don't define me. My integrity and morals do.

And you are right. You would not change. Public perception, at this point I believe, would. Terms like "high capacity" are buzz words right now and we just aren't ready to take that leap. So yes, we should keep following laws and be moral and demonstrate integrity.

 

[shawn]

And you are right. You would not change. Public perception, at this point I believe, would. Terms like "high capacity" are buzz words right now and we just aren't ready to take that leap. So yes, we should keep following laws and be moral and demonstrate integrity.

Buzz words like high capacity has been used for the last 20 years. If the law changed tomorrow public perception would not change at all, just like it didn't with the LGR. The law changed blood did not run in the streets and it effected the average person's life in no way what so ever. So they forgot about it.

Shawn

 

[BR427]

Who the #### are you to make the call? Just because it's a whole lot of fun to rip off a few rounds on full auto, doesn't give you the right to say who should or should not have FA. Anyone who has a RPAL should be able to own and shoot Full Auto whenever they want.

 

[shawn]

Who the #### are you to make the call? Just because it's a whole lot of fun to rip off a few rounds on full auto, doesn't give you the right to say who should or should not have FA. Anyone who has a RPAL should be able to own and shoot Full Auto whenever they want.

LOL

Shawn

 

[Ramblr]

So are you going to post up your stats?

Especially the one about 90% of guns used in crime being legally procured. As is the person who committed the crime legally acquired the gun.

Shawn

No, because I feel it would be pointless to do so seeing as how you are already prepared to just tell me I'm flat out wrong. Regardless of what I post, you will argue it (and from certain perspectives you can, actually). That's not the issue, the issue there is that I feel you do not respect nor attempt to understand my position. So numbers on a document are worthless to this debate. I've honestly given up on most of what I was trying to express. If you are still curious, just go to stats Canada, then the American equivalent (name escapes me). There is a page that compares all finding and I used both that and my own calculations from the respective crime stats and they both had the same number. Those are the facts I gave in my presentation to my class, which is where i drew my numbers from.

 

[Ramblr]

Who the #### are you to make the call? Just because it's a whole lot of fun to rip off a few rounds on full auto, doesn't give you the right to say who should or should not have FA. Anyone who has a RPAL should be able to own and shoot Full Auto whenever they want.

I'm not the one to make the call, friend. Your duly elected government representatives are.

 

[shawn]

No, because I feel it would be pointless to do so seeing as how you are already prepared to just tell me I'm flat out wrong. Regardless of what I post, you will argue it (and from certain perspectives you can, actually). That's not the issue, the issue there is that I feel you do not respect nor attempt to understand my position. So numbers on a document are worthless to this debate. I've honestly given up on most of what I was trying to express. If you are still curious, just go to stats Canada, then the American equivalent (name escapes me). There is a page that compares all finding and I used both that and my own calculations from the respective crime stats and they both had the same number. Those are the facts I gave in my presentation to my class, which is where i drew my numbers from.

I have done the research and it does not support the stats you claim.

You're new and dont know me, I call BS on BS and am more than willing to admit I am wrong when I am. But only if you can back up your position with the proof, so far you have not.

I guess you are correct I dont respect a position or care to understand it if it is based on nothing. As why should I respect an opinion/position on a subject if someone is not willing to educate themselves about it before telling others what they should or should not be able too do? I am not saying I dont respect your opinion or position, I have not come to that decision yet. So far we have you making some wild claims and not being able to back them up.

Numbers on a document are the only thing worth this debate. Either the laws have an effect or they dont, there is no oh this makes people feel better BS. The only way to prove that is with the stats.

Show me

Shawn