straightshooter said:
Fascinating theory Deano, but it doesn't hold water. Firearms ownership never was, isn't now, and never will be an all or nothing proposition. Hand grenades, land mines, rocket propelled grenades, etc. have been prohibited for a long time. Hasn't been a problem for any hunters, target shooters, collectors, or anybody else I know.
Assault rifles and tactical weapons scare people. That's a fact. My opinion does nothing to divide the firearms community. Looking at it from a different perspective, it may be the all or nothing approach that has done us the most harm. If we want to maintain our heritage and/or our right to own and use firearms, we have to disconnect 'normal' firearms use from murder statistics and such in the minds of average Canadians.
I've heard your theory before, many times. I even subscribed to it myself, at first. Now, I'm not so sure. I'll be the first to admit that I'd love to go out to Wainwright and fire a tank, a bazooka, or even a full auto. But, I can live without the experience. What I can't live with is more restrictions on legitimate recreational use of firearms. If we give them an all or nothing choice, who's to say they won't take us up on it.
I have no beef with tactical firearms (I need a "trench broom" to complete my 1897 collection). I guess my point is, as a group, it wouldn't hurt us to take a balanced approach to what we say in public (this IS a public forum). When someone new to the sport asks us for advice, would it be dividing our community to talk about safety? about quality? about suitability for the intended purpose?
I'll be happy to work with anyone who wants to protect our right to own firearms through promoting responsible gun use.
SS
I guess my point is, as a group, it wouldn't hurt us to take a balanced approach to what we say in public (this IS a public forum). When someone new to the sport asks us for advice, would it be dividing our community to talk about safety? about quality? about suitability for the intended purpose?
Sorry, but this quote
I know I'll piss off the "tactical" shotgun lovers with this but, other than shooting people, there's really nothing that a tactical config can do better than a conventional hunting config. Unfortunately, buying or customizing shotguns in this way signals to the whole world that your real interest in firearms is the power you perceive that you gain from having it. That makes you dangerous to the general population and a liability to the rest of us. Fear of young people with hand guns and tactical weapons is what drives the anti-gun lobby.
tells me that you had a little bit more to say about tactical guns other than safety and responsible ownership. By the way, how did you glean from goose25's original post that he was irresponsible, unsafe? Simply by his choice in a first shotgun. By the way, I do agree that his current setup is not a great choice for hunting, but who really cares? It's his money, right? So long as he shoots safely and acts responsibly, then who cares. If he does take it hunting and limits his shots to about twenty five yars or so, then I'm fine with that. I'm sure he had to take some hunters safety courses to get his PAL and would have learned that.
You committ a common fallacy in logic. YOu take my point about tactical shotguns, ie a Remmington 870 with a larger magazine capacity and shorter barrel, and compare this to bazookas, land mines and rocket propelled grenades. This ia called a Straw Man fallacy. Essentially, you take my argumnet and create a "straw man" that you then can blow down. This logic is flawed.
At no point did I advocate the private ownership of such devices. I feel that would be irresponsible. I do take issue with you on tactical shotguns, prohibited and restricted weapons.
Tell me something. What is the difference between a Remington 1187 and a tactical semi automatic shotgun? Or for that matter, a Remington 7400 and an assault rifle, as you call it?
The answer is not much. Compare a Remington 7400 with an SKS Carbine, which you would call an "assault rifle". I would reasonably argue that the Remington would be the more deadly weapon, as it uses a more powerful cartidge and is certainly more accurate. Yet you say the public is afraid of the assault rifle. This has more to do with the antigun lobby spreading false information, the police making innacurate statements and the press reporting misleading facts than any real analysis or true comparison.
Let's face the facts here. Semi automatic weapons, with the lone exception of the M1 Garand, are limited to five rounds, in the hands of a law abiding citizen. Shotguns are limited with overall length, or barell length restrictions, once again, in the hands of law abiding citizens.
The argument that makes the most sense, and seems to be ignored by yourself, is that criminals, not responsible gun owners, are responsible for the crimes they commit. Is the car owner responsible for the thief who uses a stolen vehicle to commit a crime? Of course not. Yet that very onus is placed on gun owners. According to the liberals and thier antigun cronies, we should be held resppnsible for crimes committed by others. I argue that this is patently unfair, yet you would have us buckle under and say all right. Heaven forbnid we offend anyone with our gun ownership. I will ask you this. What will you do when the antigun lobby decides that your premium trap or skeet gun is offensive?
After all, according to the antigun crowd, it is a gun and guns are bad. Guns kill people. Has anyone been murdered in Canada with a double barell shotgun? If only theses guns were banned we would have been able to save one life.
As gun owners, we are losing our rights. We are being nibbled at, one gun, one owner at a time. There will be a certain percentage of people who will never agree with any gun ownership in Canada, (Wendy Culkier). We need to do a much better job in convincing the vast majority that we are not a bunch of kooks. We need to take our kids out shooting. We need to take new folks out shooting. I have taken a friend,with no personal firearms experience, shooting handguns (gasp). Until that experience, he thought that handguns were for robbing banks and carjacking and killing people. He is now convinced otherwise. One by one if we have to, we need to fight the misconceptions and myths out there. We need to lobby, to form grassroots political action groups, have media days and educate people. The way NOT to fight the antigun lobby is to buckle under and "not offend anyone" becasue that gets entire groups of guns, and with them, entire groups of gun owners, banned. One by one, they prohibit, and then confiscate our guns. Don't fool yourself, you will be next. You might last a bit longer than the AK 47 owner, but they are coming for you too.
D 
