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

Do you Support FA Firearm Ownership?

  • Yes

    Votes: 1,021 73.6%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 189 13.6%
  • No

    Votes: 177 12.8%

  • Total voters
    1,387
Apparently people here have a difficult time accepting opinions that differ from their own, or for that matter understanding what others are trying to say.

CpYypON.gif
 
If we are to be trusted with a gun then it should not matter whether it's a single shot, semi.-auto. or full-auto.; a gun is a gun is a gun.

Vehicles are far more dangerous (think driving into a large crowd at a high rate of speed) yet we do not stipulate an acceleration limit to a certain level of drivers license, nor do we have any arbitrary maximum speed limit imposed on any ones drivers license or ones vehicles speed capability (several factory automobiles are capable of two to three times our national speed limit) yet no special drivers license is required to own or operate these high speed capable vehicles.

We trust that the people holding a valid drivers license are safe to operate their vehicle of choice.


Similarly once someone has successfully passed a required level of driving competence via practice/testing they are permitted to drive any vehicle they can afford from a very weak/slow performing car (ie. .22LR bolt action single shot rifle) to a seriously fast hi-performance car (ie. .308 full-auto. rifle).

You could use the same comparison for motorcycles to handguns. A separate license with separate training, but yet no restrictions on either for power or speed (i.e. 100cc M/C=.22LR single shot handgun to a 1400CC Super-bike=.44Magnum auto. handgun) or where you use them (provided it's safe to do so).

Again the people that have completed the correct training/tests for their M/C license are to be trusted.

Albeit it is Firearms license holders ie. PAL (Possession & Acquisition License) or RPAL (Restricted-PAL) Firearms license holders that are some of the most vetted people in our country.
Yet these licensed PAL/RPAL holders are the ones forced to jump through hoop after hoop to merely own and operate basic firearms which are proven to be much less dangerous when in the hands of legally licensed firearms holders then licensed automobile drivers are as a whole.

What we need is more education of firearms and their many positives, along with creating a better understanding of firearm topics allowing for the many negative firearm myths to be eliminated, all based on actual and correct facts and statistics.

But first we must all learn to support one another in all disciplines of our whole shooting community regardless of our differences and create one united voice of responsible firearms owners to be heard more loudly then ever before. Because whether you believe it or not, make no mistake; like others have posted here previously "they" want all our firearms removed from civilian hands (bar none).

My .02,

Cheers D
 
Apparently people here have a difficult time accepting opinions that differ from their own, or for that matter understanding what others are trying to say. I won't bother explaining again, as I think a reasonable person could understand what I am saying and discuss it without throwing around insults. Anywho, I believe my experiment with CGN is just about over. People had warned me about the interactions on here, but I decided to give it a try anyway. I see why we, as a community, have such a difficult time getting anywhere. You seem to only hear (read) the things you want to out of what I have said, and continually come up with these conclusions that just aren't there. If something I have said is unclear, by all means ask. If you don't like what I have said, then sure, discuss away, but I don't deserve to be accused of being a fool, lost, etc etc. I also see we have differing opinions, and your opinions are based no more in fact than mine.
Don't give up on it yet. Tactical use of the Ignore List makes this a much nicer place to be around.
 
Personally, I believe that where we are as a nation in regards to firearms is more or less where we should be. I think some effort needs to be put towards refining some of our laws and regulations (read: Liberals, don't you dare bring back pointless ATTs), but we are otherwise doing ok and here is why: 1) There is a CLEAR distinction between legal and illegal firearms. The VPD published a report back in 2014 (I think) that stated that 97% of firearms related crimes that occur within Vancouver are committed with illegal firearms procured through criminal means. Keep in mind the number of gun crimes is quite low to begin with, but that is a fantastic number to see! It was a bit of a sign to the general (un-gun aware) public that we, the legal, are not the problem. 2) Building off that clear distinction between legal and illegal firearms (calling it that because we all know, or at least should all know, the difference), we also have the magazine capacity laws. Yes, yes, we would all love to have 100 round drums, BUT again it gives us leverage when entering discussions about firearms. Many times I have stood up in my college classes and talked about these issues. People ask about high capacity magazines and I can say with confidence that any that are used here are used illegally. I am a responsible gun owner, I follow the law and I don't shoot anything other than paper, plastic, or metal targets. The issue at hand here is fully automatic firearms. Yup, I agree a machine gun would be sweet... But, I'm willing to vote that down in favour of keeping my sport alive and in reasonable limits. I really don't see the point, regardless of price or regulations, in owning something that is designed to shoot in such a manner. We're just going to demonize ourselves. It's unfortunate, but we have to keep in mind that what we do is seen as "evil" to a lot of people. So really, I'll take the leverage in the conversations about how our laws keep the "dangerous" and "deadly" guns off our shelves and I'll continue to use them as an example of what the criminals have vs. what the legals have. Yes, true, most crimes are committed with semi-autos BUT automatics are often found in criminal stockpiles, they don't necessarily have to be "used" in a crime to still be there and be a viable threat to "public safety." I'd rather people fear "machine guns" and leave our semi-autos and etc alone.

As another point, I had a very interesting discussion where I compared the legalization of marijuana to the sport of shooting. Some "stoners" and "casual users" in class had brought up the issue of guns, and how "bad" they were. I asked them about how they felt about the prohibition of pot, and how some people think marijuana is bad. Of course, they all groaned and said it was stupid because they know it's not the best thing to do (and understand the risks) yet is no more dangerous than alcohol, so why not just let them have what they enjoy? So the discussion goes on, and they explain all their feelings and I ask why some people drive while high. They all, again, admit how stupid a choice it is because people can get hurt. This is where I take over, and say "Well, I enjoy guns. So why, as people who understand a struggle to fight for something they enjoy, would you try to take that away from me? Sure, once in a while, some idiot does a bad thing and people get hurt. These are rare incidences, though, we're talking a handful or less a year, and we (as firearms owners) all have at least a basic education in safe firearm handling/storage/general care. We know better, and almost the entirety of the firearm owning population would never dream of using their gun(s) for the purpose of hurting another person, just as the vast majority of marijuana users would never drive while high. There are risks involved with everything, and that's just how the world works. So why try to stop something you don't like or understand, simply because you don't like or understand it?"

Needless to say, a few light bulbs went on during that discussion. Long story short, I now have several new friends who can't wait for me to take them shooting (while they are sober, of course!) hahaha :)

Good job!

I would just ignore "Shawn" typically any thread he sinks his teeth into goes full retard and beyond. 90% of the time I see him start in on a thread I bounce.
 
Illegal being procured through illegal means, or types firearms citizens simply are not permitted to own. Legal obviously the opposite.

50% of firearms related crime in Canada is by Gang affiliated members. look at the stats on stats canada. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2014001/article/11925-eng.htm

Those gang affiliated people cannot obviously purchase firearms legally since they cannot have a pal or rpal.

Perhaps they illegally purchased or stole a firearm that was orginally purchased legally by another person, but thats not at all the same now.
 
Far from demonizing ourselves, realize who owns FA. The vast majority were collectors, and war veterans. Get a group together and the dominant hair colour is white, age 80 +. So criminalization of white haired mostly now deceased grandfathers that served our country in war. Keeps our country safe, those guys and there backwards hats, crotches of their pants at their knees, driving those low riding cars, blaring Marty Robbins cassettes.

I feel so much safer.
 
Good job!

I would just ignore "Shawn" typically any thread he sinks his teeth into goes full retard and beyond. 90% of the time I see him start in on a thread I bounce.

Its not my fault you are unable to support your position with the facts or the truth LOL

Shawn
 
I am dumb founded as to why anybody is voting "NO" and willingly throw their fellow shooters under the bus even in a fictitious poll!
 
No - either the requirements of the two preceeding options are too steep (but they're not going to change for the purpose of this poll, sorry), or you completely disagree with the concept of FA firearms ownership as a whole.QUOTE]


I am dumb founded as to why anybody is voting "NO" and willingly throw their fellow shooters under the bus even in a fictitious poll!


I wouldn't be so harsh to judge because the silly way the "No" choice is worded means you could actually want FA available for licensed shooters, but do not agree with so much red tape in the process. It really doesn't make any sense why there wouldn't be a change to the wording or perhaps another choice.

If I had actually voted (I didn't based on the fact the "No" choice was written in such a poor way to include completely opposite viewpoints) I would likely have chosen "No" due to the reasons FA shouldn't be treated any differently then semi.-auto. other then perhaps a no hunting clause.

Cheers D
 
I am dumb founded as to why anybody is voting "NO" and willingly throw their fellow shooters under the bus even in a fictitious poll!

You'd be amazed (ie; disgusted) to see how many "hunters" are completely willing to throw us under the bus. On this forum included.
 

Are there any recorded crimes committed with factory designed FA firearms in either Can or the U. S.? I think we would be hard pressed to even find many crimes committed with SA rifles. Criminals routinely carry a weapon prior to any crime which dictates the size of the gun. A full size weapon is just not practical.
 
You'd be amazed (ie; disgusted) to see how many "hunters" are completely willing to throw us under the bus. On this forum included.
Many paper shooters are equally disgusted by "killing" defenceless animals and would continue to support them even if they don't hunt.
 
Back
Top Bottom