Author Topic: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0  (Read 188482 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 273,215
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,338
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1350 on: August 29, 2020, 14:10:01 »
The AR-15 and the whole move from 7.62mm to 5.56mm was actually to cause more wounding vice killing, thus committing the enemy to use more soldiers to care for wounded comrades, reducing enemy effectiveness.

Online Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 86,070
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,155
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1351 on: August 29, 2020, 14:23:01 »
I'm not familiar with the particular shooting offhand but I'll assume he didn't use an AR-15. If that's true then it would be the exception for school shootings in the US.

It was clearly stated that he used a shotgun and revolver.  Most school shootings in the US are committed with non-AR style firearms.

AR-15's are a copy of a weapon that was designed to kill people. (I am assuming that's correct).

You are incorrect.  The military M-16/M-4 are descendants of the civilian marketed AR-15.  "AR" is an abbrevaitation of "Armalite Rifle", not "Assault Rifle" as many left wingers would have you believe.

Therefore I consider the AR-15 to not be a legitimate weapon on Canada's streets.

Any AR style rifles on Canadian streets - before and after the May 1st OIC -  are either possessed by the  police or criminals.  Legally owned civilian ARs have been banned from Canadian streets for decades.
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 373,626
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,568
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1352 on: August 29, 2020, 14:32:18 »
Donald H your Remington 1100 is a semi-automatic  (read faster shooting) version of the 870 which as a firearm type probably holds the record for most people killed with a shotgun.

You're hung up on the nuanced opinion that an AR15 is designed for killing yet that arguable hunting shotgun of yours is based off a 70 year old design which is still used the world over by police and the military (on top of everyone else).

If you load that shotgun up of yours with some "hunting" ammo like slugs or OO buck you can cause a hell of a lot of damage. In an enclosed room or building by a single shooter? Way more dangerous than an AR15 IMO. Happy to hear arguments to the contrary if someone disagrees.

« Last Edit: August 29, 2020, 14:50:03 by Jarnhamar »
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Ostrozac

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 37,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 783
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1353 on: August 29, 2020, 14:35:57 »
The AR-15 and the whole move from 7.62mm to 5.56mm was actually to cause more wounding vice killing, thus committing the enemy to use more soldiers to care for wounded comrades, reducing enemy effectiveness.
I’m not so sure about that. The 1962-63 M14 vs AR15 trials run by the US Army Test and Evaluation Command were a major waypoint along the road to the replacement of 7.62mm with 5.56mm. And the trials report (as summarized in The Black Rifle by Stevens and Ezell) talks about accuracy, recoil and weight — but wounding vs lethality isn’t mentioned.

Offline Donald H

  • Banned
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 1,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 329
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1354 on: August 29, 2020, 14:38:02 »
I would suggest that tyranny of the majority is a clear and present danger that democracies need to be cognizant of...

The Remington 1100 is a 12 gauge gas operated shotgun, designed in the early 1960s.
The Beretta M4 is a 12 gauge gas operated shotgun, designed in 1998 for the US Military.
Both fire the same ammo, both are capable of similar ammo capacities, both can be similar length and weight with mods.

Quote
Do you consider them both legitimate or not?

It would seem to me that the M4 should be taken into consideration in the same way as the 1100, and I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't be. I would assume it could be fitted with a three round plug.  However, I would be cautious about making that decision if I was called upon to do so. I won't be!

Quote
Its an honest question as I have no idea how you can say that this specific firearm was designed for killing people and is not legitimate while this one is not designed for killing people and is legitimate?

I would say that the difference is in the AR-15 being designed for killing people and it's likely the most efficient long gun for that purpose. (qualifications required) While the M4, I am cautiously assuming, is no more efficient than the 1100 for killing people. (possible permutations considered) Short or shortened barrel lengths already adequately covered by law.


Quote
Note here that we are not talking about belt fed fully automatic weapons, but rather firearms like the above shotguns, the Lee Enfield, the M1 Garand, M9 Pistol. How about the British Army's Brown Bess, its a flintlock that was designed for use by a military force, hence presumably with the aim of killing the British Empires enemies?

That's a hard one to answer. How about if we consider all of those long guns being analogous to the pickup truck with a box liner and the AR-15 a long gun that is analogous to a pickup truck with the 50 cal. mounted in the box, straight from the GM factory?

To refer to the Lee Enfield, it was a very efficient hunting rifle and I owned a couple of them when I was a kid. Nothing about that rifle to object to as a deer hunting rifle other than the fact that hardpoint ammunition was easily obtained and then used for deer hunting by some people.

The AR-15 is not such a useful weapon for hunting or for target shooting. That is, in my opinion. An opinion that may or may not be valid? I think I'm right on that but maybe that opinion will be challenged?

« Last Edit: August 29, 2020, 14:40:58 by Donald H »
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.
~Mark Twain.

Online Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 86,070
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,155
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1355 on: August 29, 2020, 14:56:03 »
The AR-15 is not such a useful weapon for hunting or for target shooting. That is, in my opinion. An opinion that may or may not be valid? I think I'm right on that but maybe that opinion will be challenged?

I'll challenge your opinion.  It depends on what you hunt.  For smaller game and varmints the .223/5.56 mm is more than sufficient.

And as far as target shooting, sure, it's totally suitable and remained so for decades, up until May 1st when, magically, it was unsuitable for one reason only - votes. 

"Designed to kill the largest amount of people in the shortest amount of time" presupposes the shooter uses overcapacity magazines, which are already illegal.  One law broken.  The shooter uses those overcapacity magazines to commit murder. Two laws broken.  How many new laws do we need to put in place for this shooter to break?  Do you think the Québec mosque shooter, the Dawson College shooter, the Ecole Polytechnique shooter or the Nova Scotia and New Brunswick shooters were concerned about laws?? Not a single existing laws stopped them.  Not a single new law would have any different effect.

The AR design has led to some amazingly accurate target rifles in many different calibres.  It's only failing is that it has been used in murders in other countries with different gun cultures and didfferent laws which has led to the Trudeau Liberals using it to get re-elected.
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Offline GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 67,980
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 768
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1356 on: August 29, 2020, 15:16:23 »
A picture is worth a thousand words...


Online Target Up

    ........pull, patch, and score.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 260,380
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,256
  • that's how we roll in redneck land
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1357 on: August 29, 2020, 15:30:25 »


It's a copy of a design that was meant for doing just that if we can say that it was designed for killing people instead of it being a murder weapon. So is a Lee-Enfield .303. With my limited knowledge I don't know of any other long gun that is better suited to killing people. (that needs to be qualified of course) AK 47? 74? MP-5? Galil? Steyr Aug? ACR? SCAR?
« Last Edit: August 29, 2020, 15:40:10 by Target Up »
Apparently, a "USUAL SUSPECT"

“In peace there's nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and humility; but when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the action of the tiger; stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, disguise fair nature with hard-favor'd rage.”

 Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and start slitting throats

Offline Donald H

  • Banned
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 1,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 329
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1358 on: August 29, 2020, 16:09:47 »
A picture is worth a thousand words...

If that's correct then I have a totally wrong understanding of what is meant by the term 'firepower'. Maybe somebody will clear that question up?
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.
~Mark Twain.

Offline GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 67,980
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 768
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1359 on: August 29, 2020, 16:22:28 »
If that's correct then I have a totally wrong understanding of what is meant by the term 'firepower'. Maybe somebody will clear that question up?

Two rifles can have the exact same workings.  Shoot the exact same ammo at the exact same velocity.  Have the same range, ammo capacity, etc. but look totally different.  One has a wooden stock and looks like your dad's old hunting rifle.  The other is black and nasty looking with a pistol grip and appears all "military"...but they are functionally the same rifle.

Here's another example.  Both these rifles are Ruger Mini 14's.  Same capabilities. Both can be used for hunting.  One though is a nasty, scary "assault rifle" and must be kept away from people with mass murderous intent.

Edited to add:  The analogy of one being a normal pick-up truck and the other being a pick-up truck with a machine gun mounted in the bed isn't accurate.  It's more like one is your 50 year old aunt's Honda Accord....and the other it your buddy Gino's Honda Accord that's a low-rider with custom rims, neon lights and a tail fin.  They look totally different and your impression of the way they are driven might be based on their appearance...but they're both just Honda Accords.

« Last Edit: August 29, 2020, 16:30:28 by GR66 »

Offline RangerRay

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 21,800
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 869
  • Kloshe Nanitch
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1360 on: August 29, 2020, 17:23:01 »
Unless something has changed, I thought Mini14s were banned by OIC as well?

As for the “before times”, Mini14s were unrestricted while AR-15s were restricted. Which made no bloody sense.
"I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals." - Sir Winston Churchill

Offline Donald H

  • Banned
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 1,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 329
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1361 on: August 29, 2020, 17:29:04 »
Two rifles can have the exact same workings.  Shoot the exact same ammo at the exact same velocity.  Have the same range, ammo capacity, etc. but look totally different.  One has a wooden stock and looks like your dad's old hunting rifle.  The other is black and nasty looking with a pistol grip and appears all "military"...but they are functionally the same rifle.

Well then if that's all true (with a few more qualifications) then nobody should have an issue if he/she is limited to the brown one. Or a pink one if they're still available in pink.



Edited to add:  The analogy of one being a normal pick-up truck and the other being a pick-up truck with a machine gun mounted in the bed isn't accurate.  It's more like one is your 50 year old aunt's Honda Accord....and the other it your buddy Gino's Honda Accord that's a low-rider with custom rims, neon lights and a tail fin.  They look totally different and your impression of the way they are driven might be based on their appearance...but they're both just Honda Accords.
[/quote]

Gwan! Somebody's buddy Gino's pickup truck wouldn't have the 50 cal mounted in the box. OH, and I notiece that the picture that is worth a thousand words isn't the same picture you posted.

And then we can probably guess that the brown one won't appeal to people like the 17 year old mentally ill kid nearly as much as the black one. (or a pink one)
« Last Edit: August 29, 2020, 17:36:48 by Donald H »
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.
~Mark Twain.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 273,215
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,338
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1362 on: August 29, 2020, 17:40:28 »
Donald H, you keep referring to Kyle Rittenhouse as ‘mentally ill’.  Do you care to qualify that accusation?

Online Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 86,070
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,155
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1363 on: August 29, 2020, 17:40:43 »
If that's correct then I have a totally wrong understanding of what is meant by the term 'firepower'. Maybe somebody will clear that question up?

In the context of small arms, which includes the infamous banned rifles, firepower can be defined as a combination of the calibre, accuracy and volume of rounds being fired at a target. That can be from a single firearm, such as a rifle (C7A2/M-16), or combination of firearms sch as a rifle, squad automatic weapon (C9A2/M249) and platoon medium machine gun (C6A2/M240B).

The term "firepower" is often used to describe the capability of a specific weapon to inflict harm/damage to a target.  That's wrong.  A rifleman with an AK-47 does not have more firepower than one with a C7A2.  He has a larger calibre bullet.  He has a heavier barrel, but if he cannot employ the principles of marksmanship and hit what he's aiming at, all that is useless.

The "firepower" of long guns in Canada is severely limited by their legal magazine capacity, that being 5 rounds. Again, Liberals overlook this legal limitation when fear mongering to support their ban of lawfully owned and used firearms.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2020, 17:54:01 by Haggis »
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 373,626
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,568
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1364 on: August 29, 2020, 18:37:20 »
G2G beat me to it.

Anxious to hear why you keep calling him mentally ill Donald.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2020, 18:44:31 by Jarnhamar »
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Retired AF Guy

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 73,375
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,932
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1365 on: August 29, 2020, 21:02:55 »
The AR-15 and the whole move from 7.62mm to 5.56mm was actually to cause more wounding vice killing, thus committing the enemy to use more soldiers to care for wounded comrades, reducing enemy effectiveness.

My understanding was that with an 5.56mm rifle you could carry more ammo. Also, the AR-15 was a lot shorter than the M-14 making it easier to handle in the jungles of Vietnam.
"Leave one wolf alive, and the sheep are never safe."

Arya Stark

Online Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 86,070
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,155
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1366 on: August 29, 2020, 21:47:04 »
My understanding was that with an 5.56mm rifle you could carry more ammo. Also, the AR-15 was a lot shorter than the M-14 making it easier to handle in the jungles of Vietnam.
True, but the US and Australians still made extensive use of 7.62 mm in Vietnam due to the shortcomings of the 5.56 mm in the jungle. There are tons of 7 62 mm/.308 hunting rifles in Canada which are far more powerful than the AR-15.
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 128,070
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,614
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1367 on: August 29, 2020, 22:28:18 »
The M16 was light and alot more ammo could be carried which has seen the weapon a staple in our tool box. The M16 has less range than say an M14 which became a point of discussion During the Afghanistan War. The result I think was the advent of designate marksmen in the infantry squads with sniper type rifles. I think Canadian snipers also made an impression. ;D

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 309,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,728
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1368 on: August 30, 2020, 00:01:25 »
True, but the US and Australians still made extensive use of 7.62 mm in Vietnam due to the shortcomings of the 5.56 mm in the jungle. There are tons of 7 62 mm/.308 hunting rifles in Canada which are far more powerful than the AR-15.

Australians rifle sections had a mixture of M16s and FALs and an M60 GPMG (the latter two being 7.62) US rifle squads were basically M16s throughout but the platoon's weapon squad had several M60 GPMGs.

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 373,626
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,568
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1369 on: August 30, 2020, 10:22:08 »
Can I post this here?



We’re marching on Ottawa – JOIN US
https://firearmrights.ca/en/were-marching-on-ottawa-join-us/

Quote
Canadian gun owners have been under attack by the Liberal government since the 2015 election. Bill Blair’s reaction to a horrific tragedy in Nova Scotia committed by a madman with a known criminal past and illicit firearms was to punish legal, RCMP vetted gun owners with a mass gun ban and confiscation plan, all during a global pandemic and a suspended parliament.

We are “marching on Ottawa” on Saturday, September 12, 2020 @ 1:00pmEST – The Integrity March. We are going to the capital of Canada, where the laws are made and the lawmakers are, to demand integrity from our politicians and in the decisions they make. Canadian gun owners want a safer Canada too – and we demand credible work on crime and violence.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Donald H

  • Banned
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 1,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 329
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1370 on: August 30, 2020, 12:54:11 »
In the context of small arms, which includes the infamous banned rifles, firepower can be defined as a combination of the calibre, accuracy and volume of rounds being fired at a target. That can be from a single firearm, such as a rifle (C7A2/M-16), or combination of firearms sch as a rifle, squad automatic weapon (C9A2/M249) and platoon medium machine gun (C6A2/M240B).

The term "firepower" is often used to describe the capability of a specific weapon to inflict harm/damage to a target.  That's wrong.  A rifleman with an AK-47 does not have more firepower than one with a C7A2.  He has a larger calibre bullet.  He has a heavier barrel, but if he cannot employ the principles of marksmanship and hit what he's aiming at, all that is useless.

The "firepower" of long guns in Canada is severely limited by their legal magazine capacity, that being 5 rounds. Again, Liberals overlook this legal limitation when fear mongering to support their ban of lawfully owned and used firearms.

Thanks for that explanation Haggis. That tells me that I don't have a wrong idea on what 'firepower' means. Note though that the first picture that supposedly 'speaks a thousand words' is not the same picture that was later posted.

But I have to ask you why you think 'Liberals' overlook magazine capacity? Is it not one of the main talking points of the anti-gun lobby in Canada, as it is in the US?
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.
~Mark Twain.

Online Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 86,070
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,155
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1371 on: August 30, 2020, 13:06:06 »
But I have to ask you why you think 'Liberals' overlook magazine capacity? Is it not one of the main talking points of the anti-gun lobby in Canada, as it is in the US?

When the PM and Minister Blair talk about  the rationale for banning lawfully owned"military/assault style" firearms, they frequently use the phrase "designed to kill the largest amount of people in the shortest amount of time".  This ignores the fact that a lawful gun owner needs to change magazines every five rounds.  So, they would have to carry an awful lot of magazines.  Using New Zealand's mass shooting as an example, the shooter would've needed a minimum of eleven legal Canadian capacity magazines to murder 51 people if every shot was a kill.

Again, a criminal firearm user doesn't care about legal magazine capacity limits or any other gun laws.  But criminal firearms are not the target of this OIC, amnesty period or possible compensated confiscation (buyback), just legally owned ones.  Thus, the Liberals omit any discussion of legal magazine capacity to let the public think that 30 rounders are in every gun owners closet and glovebox.
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 147,789
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,718
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1372 on: August 30, 2020, 13:08:10 »
True, but the US and Australians still made extensive use of 7.62 mm in Vietnam due to the shortcomings of the 5.56 mm in the jungle. There are tons of 7 62 mm/.308 hunting rifles in Canada which are far more powerful than the AR-15.

7.62mm was also the preferred calibre in African Brushfire Wars.  The Portuguese, South African and Rhodesian Armies all preferred the FN FAL due to much of the terrain being flat brush land or savannah.  The FN outranged the AK47 significantly and was a very effective rifle for Fireforce Operations.  The South African Army now uses the R4 and R5 series which is 5.56mm but still uses the R1 (SA FN copy) as a designated marksman rifle.

Offline Donald H

  • Banned
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 1,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 329
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1373 on: August 30, 2020, 13:15:16 »
When the PM and Minister Blair talk about  the rationale for banning lawfully owned"military/assault style" firearms, they frequently use the phrase "designed to kill the largest amount of people in the shortest amount of time".  This ignores the fact that a lawful gun owner needs to change magazines every five rounds.  So, they would have to carry an awful lot of magazines.  Using New Zealand's mass shooting as an example, the shooter would've needed a minimum of eleven legal Canadian capacity magazines to murder 51 people if every shot was a kill.

Again, a criminal firearm user doesn't care about legal magazine capacity limits or any other gun laws.  But criminal firearms are not the target of this OIC, amnesty period or possible compensated confiscation (buyback), just legally owned ones.  Thus, the Liberals omit any discussion of legal magazine capacity to let the public think that 30 rounders are in every gun owners closet and glovebox.

Thank you for your explanation, but to the point, larger magazines certainly do aid in increasing firepower. Which goes to explain my comment on the picture 'that supposedly spoke a thousand  words'. Not the second picture which was different.

 :cheers:
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.
~Mark Twain.

Online Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 86,070
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,155
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0
« Reply #1374 on: August 30, 2020, 13:30:48 »
Thank you for your explanation, but to the point, larger magazines certainly do aid in increasing firepower. Which goes to explain my comment on the picture 'that supposedly spoke a thousand  words'. Not the second picture which was different.

Regarding that picture, which seems to show a large capacity magazine on the top rifle, an AR-15, it's important to understand that the market for custom manufactured 5 round magazines is very, very small globally.  Most 5 round magazines in Canada are formerly 20 or 30 rounders which are modified to accept only 5 rounds.  They look like the should hold 20 or 30 but are, in fact, only capable of 5 rounds capacity.
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.