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

[blaxsun]

An RPAL already requires a background check. Which you passed. Now you advocate that further restrictions would be OK for full-auto. What's the matter, don't you believe in that background check already done for your RPAL? Is there still a chance that even though you passed the check and got your RPAL that you would still not worthy of full auto ownership?

I'm a firm believer in learning the right way the first time around (it's harder to unlearn bad techniques). I'm pretty sure they don't casually throw you a C8 in the CF and let you go full auto without some prior training, so I'm not sure how this would be any different...

Truthfully, even if it were easy to get, I likely still wouldn't have one either. But I really despise how we have come to accept that some guns are more dangerous than others. A gun is a gun. By siding with the mentality that says full auto is too dangerous for some people, we lend credibility to the notion that it's fine to class other firearms as "too dangerous" or "serve no purpose". 12.6 springs to mind. Or 10 round is too dangerous. You can't see that?

It's not so much that some guns are more dangerous than others than it is some firearms owners are inherently more dangerous than others. And as I've previously stated, these folks shouldn't own anything sharper than a pencil - let alone firearms...

 

[easysauce]

if someone is "too dangerous" to own a FA or burst fire gun, they are too dangerous to own a car, propane tanks, black powder, ect ect

however we cannot predict future actions, if someones past behavior shows no signs of violence, why make a distinction between them buying a FA or a semi/pump/bolt gun...

it plays into the same anti paradigm of big bad scary guns....


last 80 years of legal FA ownership has proven that any fears of "Jim bob" firing randomly into the air or something of similarly stupid nature, are unfounded.



I think blax is just afraid of cheap FA norincos (I tease)

 

[lone-wolf]

Do they make a FA XCR?

 

[shawn]

I voted yes, if you can afford it fill your boots.

But it gets old fast especially when you have to pay for the ammo

Shawn

 

[Kevin M.]

<RANT ON>

To everybody who voted no... I really don't get you, and I worry about your grasp of firearms laws and how they can rapidly change in Canada without constant support from the entire firearms community.

Let's look at the different purposes of firearms actions.

There are single shot firearms. Usually the most basic and used for situations where only a single shot is expected to be required.

Then there is the commonly accepted for hunting Bolt/Lever/Pump guns or variations of any thereof. These rifles all have the ability to facilitate ejecting the spent cartridge quickly and quickly chamber a follow up shot, or multiple depending on the capacity of the magazine.

Semi-automatic firearms can be used and are very effective in situations where multiple rapid aimed shots are required. Depending on various factors, such as the firearm, shooter, caliber, and distance, very rapid and sustained fire can be achieved if desired, and magazine changes are fast and refill the firearm to a standard 20-30 round capacity.

Automatic firearms, depending on the same factors above, are very effective in situations where multiple rapid aimed shots are required. Despite how fun it is to let loose a magazine in one or two trigger pulls, anybody who has ever fired automatic rifles and wants results knows that you keep the bursts short, in general 2-4 rounds, depending on the factors above, and with a competent shooter, surprising accuracy can be achieved at great distance.

If you believe that automatic firearms should not be allowed because they can rapidly expend cartridges in a precise manner with the right shooter,and that they serve no purpose for civilians, then you need to go ahead and take a big step back, and literally ------------------. YOU ARE ONE OF THE BIGGEST PROBLEMS FOR GUN OWNERS BECAUSE YOU ONLY SUPPORT YOUR OWN INTERSESTS, WHILE THROWNING OTHERS UNDER THE BUS.

Why draw the line at automatics? Why not prohibit semi-autos? They are functionally very similar and a skilled shooter can achieve very similar and near equally effective results to automatic fire.

Heck, if this is only about hunting, why not limit everything to one shot? I mean really, why do you need to expend multiple cartridges in a rapid manner anyways right? What ethical hunter would need to do that? One shot ought to be enough for any animal with proper shot placement. Why don't we just prohibit anything that can fire multiple rounds in a somewhat rapid manner?

I would like to relate this to cars for just a second. Why should we allow Ferarris, Lamborginis, and Porches to be owned by anybody and drive on the road? They have so much potential speed that they are incredibly dangerous for anybody on the road, and are not practical in any way. We should all drive around in small engined compact cars becauese they are relatively slow, safe, fuel efficient, and practical. Idiocy you say? EXACTLY. Why should people determine what and how you drive if you are a law abiding person who has broken no laws? Same thing with automatic firearms. Just because they are not practical and fire fast doesn't mean they will be used improperly or for illicit purposes by those who own and operate them, and to think otherwise is ignorant to the extreme.

With thoughts like what you say, before you know it we will end up like Britain and Austrailia, with guns regulated near to the point of non-existance, which was exactly where we were headed for a long time, and only recently turned it around. It won't take much to turn the tide back against us if we let our guard down. You are your own biggest enemy if you don't support gun ownership as a whole, because one thing at a time, you will lose your right to own and use it. I personally support and will fight for the rights of every firearm owner, regardless of if I take an interest in your particular part of the hobby or not.

I love my freedoms as a proud Canadian citizen, and I will fight tooth and nail to keep every one of them. PERIOD.

<RANT OFF>

 

[AOWM]

An RPAL is an RPAL. Why are you trying to make some guns more villainous than others? Where's the "dog with an RPAL and nothing more" option?

I voted yes but what I meant was yes to this option.

 

[mrsmitty]

Pretty disappointed in the no answers to this poll. Voted yes. I would really enjoy having a third position on my selector switch on my sr15. I would buy a subgun too. Probably wouldn't switch it to the third position much due to cost but it would still be pretty damn nice to have that option.

 

[NoDanger]

I voted "maybe" but having voted that way, I would rather be able to have a 30 round mag for my AR than FA

 

[Popurhedoff]

<RANT ON>

To everybody who voted no... I really don't get you...


If you believe that automatic firearms should not be allowed because they can rapidly expend cartridges in a precise manner with the right shooter,and that they serve no purpose for civilians, then you need to go ahead and take a big step back, and literally F*&K your own face. YOU ARE ONE OF THE BIGGEST PROBLEMS FOR GUN OWNERS BECAUSE YOU ONLY SUPPORT YOUR OWN INTERSESTS, WHILE THROWNING OTHERS UNDER THE BUS.

With that little rant, are you mentally fit and can be entrusted to have FA's? Give more fodder to the anti's.

I haven't decided yet, I want to make an informed decision, not one based on fun, or what I want, or a preceived god given rights of property. I prefer to research on what the government can expect to get passed, what the general public will accept, and the pro's and con's of FA in civilian hands. I do like that Canada is going forward with recinding some of these so called firearms reforms, its a step in the right direction. One step at a time, not rushing forward.

I carry a FA AK-47 at work everyday, I see first hand what rapidly expended cartridges in a precise and imprecise manner do. Kevin M. can have FA's but by OIC be only allowed to have 1 round capacity magazines/belts ;-)

 

[TJspeller]

Do you support random Blaxsun polls?

I see these polls as nothing more than an attempt to get CGNers mad at each other and fracture the community. I saw them go up yesterday, and I knew this ugliness would happen. This community does not need that kind of poll. Speech is free, and Blaxsun can do what he wants on this web site as long as the admins agree with it, but I am not sure that his agenda is to improve the life of gun owners in Canada.

 

[blaxsun]

I see these polls as nothing more than an attempt to get CGNers mad at each other and fracture the community.

That's fairly short-sighted... Apparently you've missed a lot of the informative posts that numerous people have made; there were quite a few rational arguments. There's certainly nothing wrong with debate, and if anything - it should be actively encouraged.

 

[BenL]

I see these polls as nothing more than an attempt to get CGNers mad at each other and fracture the community. I saw them go up yesterday, and I knew this ugliness would happen. This community does not need that kind of poll. Speech is free, and Blaxsun can do what he wants on this web site as long as the admins agree with it, but I am not sure that his agenda is to improve the life of gun owners in Canada.

How would you then propose that the discussion take place? It must be one accessible by all.

In-person only? We'd need a heck of a big conference center. Or a large field.
Conference calls? I wouldn't want to flip the bill for that one.

Or not at all? With certain parameters and guidelines to control the said discussion?

 

[Andurp]

How dare you sir!

I support ownership of FA, I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not because it's hard to tell sometimes on the internet, but I was disappointed with the 'no' votes.

 

[blaxsun]

How dare you sir!

I support ownership of FA, I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not because it's hard to tell sometimes on the internet, but I was disappointed with the 'no' votes.

That was just a poke at your current 'statist' provincial Government. We threw the NDP under the bus here years ago, and never looked back...

Don't forget that a "no" isn't necessarily cut and dry. A "no" may also mean that while they may support the idea of FA, they may not agree with the requirements or hoops that they'd have to jump through.

 

[joe-nwt]

I'm a firm believer in learning the right way the first time around (it's harder to unlearn bad techniques). I'm pretty sure they don't casually throw you a C8 in the CF and let you go full auto without some prior training, so I'm not sure how this would be any different...



It's not so much that some guns are more dangerous than others than it is some firearms owners are inherently more dangerous than others. And as I've previously stated, these folks shouldn't own anything sharper than a pencil - let alone firearms...

First, the intended use of a full auto within the CF has got nothing to do with a civilian going to a range or plinking in the back yard. And the CF is a job. You would expect training for a job. How many hobbies to you expect training for? This scenario is so far removed from civilian ownership it can't even be properly debated. Hmmmm, should everyone have to do a training at an Indy track to get a special endorsement to buy a corvette?

Two, how could those firearms owners be inherently more dangerous? Didn't they take the same RPAL course as you? Either you are just as dangerous or the whole licencing scheme is not really working as far as safety and behaviour, wouldn't you say?

Also, we know how it feels to have encumbrances placed upon us because of what "some" might do. Why do you want to add more?

 

[armorman]

Fracture the community? So limiting our freedom to choose will somehow bond us together? I see the gun grabbers have already engineered some of you guys into believing that these "evil" guns are unnecessary and dangerous. Wait until they come for your evil bolt action hunting rifles and pump action shotguns because we all know that you can still hunt with a bow and arrow or a sling shot.

 

[tiriaq]

Being of riper years, I owned FAs back in the day. They were owned/bought/sold in exactly the same manner that pistols were.
FA ownership was simply not an issue. As far as I know, no crime of violence has been committed in Canada by someone using a legally owned FA.
Don't know if people/society has changed so much that non-grandfathered legal FA ownership would be a problem. Probably no more than cheap SKS rifles and cheap ammunition are.

There have been a number of posts in this thread that are outright offensive.
I suggest that some people go back and edit what they have posted, before someone has to do it for them. Or the thread gets locked.

 

[blaxsun]

Morning Joe!

First, the intended use of a full auto within the CF has got nothing to do with a civilian going to a range or plinking in the back yard.

I suspect your 'back yard' is a lot larger than mine...

Two, how could those firearms owners be inherently more dangerous?

The same way some drivers are inherently more dangerous, irresponsible or reckless than others - despite taking (supposedly) the same driver training course. The same idiots that continually post about the availability of slidefire stocks are the same ones I'd be leery about having FA. Mainly because there's no point in a slidefire stock with 5 rounds (or even 10, for that matter), so it's not hard to infer intent there. I'm not going to point-blank come out and say it, but it's not hard to read between the lines...

Also, we know how it feels to have encumbrances placed upon us because of what "some" might do. Why do you want to add more?

I voted "maybe", because to be honest - the current RPAL firearms safety course is grossly inadequate (particularly when it comes to black rifles). So while that's a separate issue entirely, yes - I do believe that some level of additional training for FA is required. I could say a CSSA-sponsored course would be ideal, but that's ignoring the reality that the CFC is probably not going to hand over the reigns with respect to any part of PAL training or requirements.

Perhaps the question I should be asking is why you're so vehemently opposed to it? I have to assume it's on general principal, because other than stating you feel that less Government interference is preferential - you still haven't indicated if you feel that more training is detrimental.

 

[blaxsun]

Don't know if people/society has changed so much that non-grandfathered legal FA ownership would be a problem. Probably no more than cheap SKS rifles and cheap ammunition are.

Do you really believe that? I'd say that public perception has changed radically with respect to firearms over the past few decades. In part, due to the many tragic school shootings in this country, but also the continued high-profile media exposure of gang-related gun violence.

So while I'd agree that FA poses no greater threat now than when it was completely legal, my perspective is not necessarily relevant in the grand scheme of things.

 

[joe-nwt]

Morning Joe!



I suspect your 'back yard' is a lot larger than mine...



The same way some drivers are inherently more dangerous, irresponsible or reckless than others - despite taking (supposedly) the same driver training course. The same idiots that continually post about the availability of slidefire stocks are the same ones I'd be leery about having FA. Mainly because there's no point in a slidefire stock with 5 rounds (or even 10, for that matter), so it's not hard to infer intent there. I'm not going to point-blank come out and say it, but it's not hard to read between the lines...



I voted "maybe", because to be honest - the current RPAL firearms safety course is grossly inadequate (particularly when it comes to black rifles). So while that's a separate issue entirely, yes - I do believe that some level of additional training for FA is required. I could say a CSSA-sponsored course would be ideal, but that's ignoring the reality that the CFC is probably not going to hand over the reigns with respect to any part of PAL training or requirements.

Perhaps the question I should be asking is why you're so vehemently opposed to it? I have to assume it's on general principal, because other than stating you feel that less Government interference is preferential - you still haven't indicated if you feel that more training is detrimental.

So what you are saying is the driving course/licence doesn't prevent idiots from getting behind the wheel either. Huh. So how will training help with regards to firearms? Type slow so I can understand.

The whole licencing system was put in place to deter firearms ownership. More "training" will simply deter more ownership and further dwindle our numbers. I think that's a bad thing.

I have to go to work. Later.