The Great Gun Control Debate- 2.0

[Halifax Tar]

Technical wise that rifle is essentially the same as this.

Same caliber.
Both magazine fed
Same barrel length

Well put.

 

[Lumber]

Well put.

I ask because I don't hunt (and I've never shot at anything living).

I've always wondered why is it that "hunting rifles" always seems to look like, well, "hunting rifles".

I was curious whether anything in that design (being a bull pup, having a tri-pod, whatever) would lend it to being advantageous toward hunting.

I mean, it looks cooler than a standard hunting rifle (at least that's my opinion), so if you can have a rifle that's good for hunting AND have it look cool, why not?

 

[Halifax Tar]

I ask because I don't hunt (and I've never shot at anything living).

I've always wondered why is it that "hunting rifles" always seems to look like, well, "hunting rifles".

I was curious whether anything in that design (being a bull pup, having a tri-pod, whatever) would lend it to being advantageous toward hunting.

I mean, it looks cooler than a standard hunting rifle (at least that's my opinion), so if you can have a rifle that's good for hunting AND have it look cool, why not?

Functionally they do they same thing.  Semi-Auto .308.  With ergonomic and esthetic differences.

Depending on how one hunts a bipod can be valuable or simply added weight with little value.  For instance, I am still young enough that I find it hard to sit for 8 hours in a blind or stand.  So I always bring two rifles hunting.  One is Lee Enfield No.5 Jungle Carbine, its short and light and good for my morning hunts when I like to walk the choppings perimeters and goat trails.  At lunch I switch it out for my Norc M305 or a .12ga shotgun and use either to sit in my ground blind for the evenings.  When in my ground blind I also employ my homemade shooting sticks, which act like a bipod.

Sorry if I came off defensive earlier, that was not intended.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Technical wise that rifle is essentially the same as this.

Same caliber.
Both magazine fed
Same barrel length

That is the same as my deer rifle. A Remington 742. Very versatile. It is barreled in a number of calibers and you can just change out the barrels. .243 Win up to 30-06.

 

[Infanteer]

But it is black.  Therefore it is an assault rifle.  Therefore it is used to kill people.  Therefore it should be banned.  :Tin-Foil-Hat:



Now you see how silly the ban guns argument can get at times, when it is driven by emotion and not an understanding of the technical functionality of any specific firearm.  People feel "safer" if they ban something purely for its features.  Its like trying to curb speeding by demanding that all sports cars not be painted red.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

But it is black.  Therefore it is an assault rifle.  Therefore it is used to kill people.  Therefore it should be banned.  :Tin-Foil-Hat:



Now you see how silly the ban guns argument can get at times, when it is driven by emotion and not an understanding of the technical functionality of any specific firearm.  People feel "safer" if they ban something purely for its features.  Its like trying to curb speeding by demanding that all sports cars not be painted red.

You're preaching to the choir in here Infanteer.  :nod:

 

[Remius]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberals-handguns-firears-1.4801700

Liberals looking at full ban on handguns and "assault" weapons.


We'll see where this goes...

My take is that I don't fear lawful gun owners.  So I don't think a ban will make me any safer.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Bill Blair, as many other police officials, believe that only the police and military should have guns.

I'm pretty sure we already know what is going to happen to our private property.

The Trudeau Sr didn't write property rights into the Charter, we have none. So likely no compensation for the theft of our property.

And as been proven, even in Australia and Britain, as long as people have some basic tools, you will not get rid of guns.

 

[Lumber]

Bill Blair, as many other police officials, believe that only the police and military should have guns.

I'm pretty sure we already know what is going to happen to our private property.

The Trudeau Sr didn't write property rights into the Charter, we have none. So likely no compensation for the theft of our property.

And as been proven, even in Australia and Britain, as long as people have some basic tools, you will not get rid of guns.

I just found out yesterday that in Nova Scotia (and i've heard other places as well), you are actually allowed to "trespass" on someone else's property if that property is forestland and you are doing it for the purpose of hunting.

I mean it kind of makes sense; if you have a gun in your hands, how am I supposed to stop you from coming on my property?  ;D

How's them for property rights.

As for Australia and Britain, they didn't outright ban their guns, so why would you expect them to get rid of all the existing guns?

 

[Halifax Tar]

I just found out yesterday that in Nova Scotia (and i've heard other places as well), you are actually allowed to "trespass" on someone else's property if that property is forestland and you are doing it for the purpose of hunting.

I mean it kind of makes sense; if you have a gun in your hands, how am I supposed to stop you from coming on my property?  ;D

How's them for property rights.

As for Australia and Britain, they didn't outright ban their guns, so why would you expect them to get rid of all the existing guns?

The law in NS is more along the lines of not being able to interfere with a legal hunt, you are also allowed remove any materials that persons leave on your property, such as trail cams, blinds, stands ect ect ect. 

Its people who abuse this nuance that give hunters a bad name.  IMHO the law should be changed.

 

[Lumber]

The law in NS is more along the lines of not being able to interfere with a legal hunt, you are also allowed remove any materials that persons leave on your property, such as trail cams, blinds, stands ect ect ect. 

Its people who abuse this nuance that give hunters a bad name.  IMHO the law should be changed.

I'm a very strong proponent of property rights (and by property I specifically mean "my land"), and it blows me away that if I cant you just walking through my forest, that's trespassing, but if you have a gun in your hands and claim to be "hunting", then you haven't broken any law.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

We are not talking just land, but anything you own.

It's not about trespassing and hunting rights (which is not part of the Gun Control debate)

It's about the government's ability to seize anything you own and not compensate you for it, or just the ability to arbitrarily and usually with flawed logic, statistics and just plain lies, take what they want and leave you at the side of the road with an empty bag.

I certainly don't want to lose any guns, but in the event of government seizure, fair compensation would go a long way to smooth things a bit.

However, I doubt they'll be willing to give me $100,000 for my retirement nesteggs.

Amnesty's to turn in guns usually net owners $25-$50 for each firearm, which is a major loss for some.

It's like the government going in and just draining your RRSP account and telling you 'tough shit.'

 

[Remius]

Maybe if they allowed a tax deduction...

Better than nothing.

 

[Lumber]

We are not talking just land, but anything you own.

It's not about trespassing and hunting rights (which is not part of the Gun Control debate)

I just find it hypocritical that a faction of those who are very pro gun (hunters) are concerned about with property rights (owning guns), while at the same time maintaining the right to infringe on my property by trespassing on my property (hypothetically).

Otherwise, yes, this tangent has nothing to do with the overall theme of the government simply making a law forcing law abiding gun owners to hand over their weapons.

 

[Haggis]

Bill Blair, as many other police officials, believe that only the police and military should have guns.

  The RCMP Commissioner and some major municipal police chiefs don't agree that a gun ban is the solution.  They want more resources to go after bad guys.  Both the promised and undelivered ($300 M +) and un-promised but soon-to-be asked for.  A gun ban will tax existing resources even more leaving even less money for front-line law enforcement.  I think Minister Blair is in for quite a fight - from within and without - if this is the path he chooses.  And, this is not the top item in his mandate letter nor the most pressing for the Liberals. He's also got irregular migration, cannabis regulation and dealing with the opioid crisis on his plate.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

The Trudeau Sr didn't write property rights into the Charter, we have none. So likely no compensation for the theft of our property.

While you are for the most part right, I think that trying to confiscate property (firearms) from people who have committed no crimes would result in numerous constitutional challenges that it would go all the way to the Supreme Court.

 

[PuckChaser]

I just find it hypocritical that a faction of those who are very pro gun (hunters) are concerned about with property rights (owning guns), while at the same time maintaining the right to infringe on my property by trespassing on my property (hypothetically).

Otherwise, yes, this tangent has nothing to do with the overall theme of the government simply making a law forcing law abiding gun owners to hand over their weapons.

Lawful hunters don't trespass. They'd be the ones knocking on your door to ask polite permission to hunt your property. Some will even offer money or some of the meat as thanks. Its even covered in the Ontario hunter safety course.

 

[RedcapCrusader]

Bill Blair, as many other police officials, believe that only the police and military should have guns.

I'm pretty sure we already know what is going to happen to our private property.

The Trudeau Sr didn't write property rights into the Charter, we have none. So likely no compensation for the theft of our property.

And as been proven, even in Australia and Britain, as long as people have some basic tools, you will not get rid of guns.

Compensation for damages, losses, theft of property as a result of crime would be covered under the Victim's Bill of Rights and your provincial Victims of Crime Act/Fund.

 

[Cloud Cover]

LoL. Not a snowball's chance....

 

[Stoker]

While you are for the most part right, I think that trying to confiscate property (firearms) from people who have committed no crimes would result in numerous constitutional challenges that it would go all the way to the Supreme Court.

They have already confiscated firearms without compensation. SPAS 12, Tec 9, Barrett .50. They showed up to peoples doors without warning with a bunch of cops and took them.