Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 CptJake wrote:

Bullockist wrote:

Everytime people talk about guns it seems to be home owners vs criminals being talked about and how home owners need bigger guns. I've a crazy thought for you, criminals can be home owners. Who would have thought? I always thought criminals waited in the periphery of my vision waiting to do bad things to me.

And when I break into their home or attempt to mug them one night, they can claim self defense when they shoot me.

What point were you trying to make?

My point is the argument is always we need guns to protect ourselves from criminals. Criminals however can buy and use exactly the same guns you can use for protection in order to commit a crime.
In my country we don't "need" guns for protection because for the most part criminals don't use guns. Can you see how the whole we need them(guns) for protection idea just becomes a circular race for armament? It also becomes pointless as criminals buy the same guns for crime as you use for protection.

The whole protection idea also loses out when the idea of having a full auto weapon in your house may make you feel safe, however in a house invasion you are unlikely to have time to go grab the weapon and get to the area you need to in time. If however you leave it loaded in an easy to reach place you have no sympathy if your kid blows their head off with it.

If you choose to have more guns in your society then your criminals will have more guns. It is that simple.

You ignore that criminals with a conviction are not legally allowed to own guns, yet that does not stop them.

You also ignore that many law abiding citizens, such as myself, would rather blow away a bad guy that only had a knife or bat or bad attitude rather than risk being beaten or stabbed to death. I value my family members' an my own life MUCH more than I value a crap bag robbing or mugging me and mine.

You also ignore that I know the lay out of my house, especially in the dark, more than any stranger breaking in, and I trust my training, instincts, and willingness to use a weapon to see that at the end, I'm the one standing. It is a bet I and others like me are willing to take, especially when the alternative is a family member hurt or worse.

You also ignore the fact that wether or not I choose to arm myself, or to have more guns in my society, my society already has them. And the bad guys historically ignore the calls to turn in weapons and tend to disregard laws limiting ownership.

You also misrepresent what folks are saying. I have not seen ONE person state in this thread they need 'full auto weapons' to feel safe. In fact, full auto weapons are very difficult and expensive to legally own, so much so that most people assume they are illegal.

And you ignore another basic fact. I may live in a place where I fell 100% safe and still may desire to exercise my RIGHT to own a weapon, just because I can. I may enjoy the many competitive shooting sports, just think they are cool, or want to have a fully stocked arms room just in case. My reasons for owning a gun make no difference, it is my right to do so if I choose.

So frankly, your point is poorly made.

you're ignoring that the argument that you need weapons to protect yourselves from criminals is moot because here we have gun laws and criminals by and large do not use guns.

So more guns in society = more guns used in crime. I never understand why this connection is never made by people in America.

If bad guys ignore the turning in of weapons it still means that arms seized gradually get taken out of the system whilst the similar level of firearms are much harder to get.

I'm not against guns, I'm getting a rifle soon, I just think the "i need guns to protect myself" is a ridiculous argument based on fear and not logic. I don't need a gun to protect myself, I've never even considered it and carrying a gun here marks you AS a criminal not a citizen needing protection. That's gun laws working.

The whole protection idea also loses out when the idea of having a full auto weapon in your house may make you feel safe, however in a house invasion you are unlikely to have time to go grab the weapon and get to the area you need to in time. If however you leave it loaded in an easy to reach place you have no sympathy if your kid blows their head off with it.

Like how you slipped that in....we had grenades get slipped in and now you slipped in a full automatic rifle into this...now the current generation of full automatic crew serve weapons are the 240's (7.62mm) and the M249 SAW's (5.56mm) which we all know we cannot purchase. Converting AR15/M4's to full auto is waste...with bullets a little over a dollar per round...so that's a waste....why we have three round burst selection on most mil weapons....I unfortunaly has a full auto on my last deployment but that's what I get for mostly working with the "Dark Side" units. I much prefer semi. I want to know where my round go when I fire instead "pray and spray" No way would I go for a Thompson Submachine gun....45 cal make damn big holes in bodies and walls. Hence quite of bit of repair on drywall and again....I paid good money on my carpet....Kind of notice those of us are not letting our emotions play into this?

And people say that there arent many guns in Australia??

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/22738028/smuggling-ring-sent-guns-from-nashville-to-australia

Sure, there arent as many per capita when compared to us, but they are there, and if it's a big enough business to have 2 countries working together to break up a smuggling ring, well then theres a problem for sure.


Like Jihadin and CptJake, I own guns not out of fear, but in part from desire, and another part from training. We plan for any and ALL eventualities, and come up with solutions and mitigations for those events, IF they come about. Statistically, will I be the victim of a crime? It's unlikely, but likely enough that it is prudent of me to take measures to limit the impact of a crime happening to me or mine.

I had to slip in the full auto It's kind of my tradition on dakka to stick one ridiculous hyperbole in a post even if i have made logical sense for the rest of the post.

What's a dark side unit Jihadin? Some sort of Sith deployment?

The way you are so concerned about your house more than the corpse of the house invader makes me think your emotions are invested in your property. I can imagine the scene of you bravely defending your house with your grenades and a full auto and the wife coming home and telling you off about ruining the new carpet, "why can't you just use the semi auto, I don't work all week to come home to this mess!"

I hear you on the cost of the ammo but aren't the cost of your childrens lives worth that much?

These threads are always emotive and as such are awesome and usually have one Sebster and Seaward multi quote argument, which i always enjoy.

Oh and ensis what is considered a major problem over here with drive bys and shootings in a city of 4.6 million wouldn't even register in a medium sized city in america, I think we might get 126 shootings a year ( i think that was the last figure i remember ) which seems very small to me out of 4.6 million people.

Bullockist wrote:

I'm not against guns, I'm getting a rifle soon, I just think the "i need guns to protect myself" is a ridiculous argument based on fear and not logic. I don't need a gun to protect myself, I've never even considered it and carrying a gun here marks you AS a criminal not a citizen needing protection. That's gun laws working.

*puts on tinfoil hat*

No, that sounds like a government that doesn't trust it's citizens.

Why should the government be afraid of a law abiding citizen carrying a gun? If anything, he's a good thing, someone that can stop a crime before it begins, and save innocent lives. Isn't the average police response time in Austrailia something like at least 20 minutes for most instances? Would you really want to be on your own, with no weapon to defend yourself for that long?

*takes off tinfoil hat* (I get what you were really saying there by the way, just wanted to argue that)

In a more serious tone, there's simply no way that a confiscation would work. There are HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of firearms in the USA. There is no possible way you'd be able to remove enough of them to make it where a law abiding citizen wouldn't "need" them anymore. Even if you remove all the ones in the US, it's not like Cuba and Mexico and other countries aren't going to keep smuggling them in. And that's ignoring the Constitution and the implications that would bring ("well if the 2nd amendment is outdated, why do citizens need the 1st, 4th, and 5th? That's just slowing us down from catching criminals and terrorists.") the MASSIVE expenditure in time, money, and in all likelyhood, human lives; and the fact that it would set a precedent of allowing basic rights to be ignored based on "public safety". That's how we ended up with things like our "war on terror", the PATRIOT act, SAFE, and all the other horrible programs that have been getting exposed recently.

Ignoring that, look at how well the war on drugs and the prohibition went. Now imagine that, but literally every single person the authorities are going after has a gun.

Simply put, the approaches that seem so "sensible" to other countries would never work here. We're just too different from you in that regard. And I don't care how many guns the government confiscates, the gangbangers down the street will still find ways to get them. And as long as they have them, I don't see why I shouldn't have the right to those weapons as well to protect myself, my family, and my property.

No, it isn't perfect, but it's the best solution you're going to get in America.

EDIT: Yeah these threads can get heated, but for some weird reason I love arguing back and forth in them. No idea why

These threads are always emotive and as such are awesome and usually have one Sebster and Seaward multi quote argument, which i always enjoy.

No comment

The way you are so concerned about your house more than the corpse of the house invader makes me think your emotions are invested in your property. I can imagine the scene of you bravely defending your house with your grenades and a full auto and the wife coming home and telling you off about ruining the new carpet, "why can't you just use the semi auto, I don't work all week to come home to this mess!"

Wife is on the LEO side of the Government She might not have arresting power but she does have to know her way around a weapon

I hear you on the cost of the ammo but aren't the cost of your childrens lives worth that much?

Why I always use semi. Single rounds....I do not "pray and spray" because I'm more concern on where my rounds go. I go for the kill shot. I do not want to throw lead down range putting danger to anyone be it kids or parents. Hence I stick with a weapon that I'm real familiar with.

On a side note I brought my weapons for the desire of having them. Which also includes a M1 Carbine. Still debating a Garand but a side arm desire is getting in the way.

As to the "Darkside Units" well itsa terminology we use in the military on certain type of units




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I want to bring up though if someone was armed when that British soldier got hacked to death....would you have stopped it?

Get the Garand Jihadin, CMP will only have a stock of high quality cheap ones for so long.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Yeah, they made the switch because of NATO standardisation. Sorry for being a smart-ass

Except that it was the US that argued for 5.56 as the standard NATO round. The UK made the argument for a round larger than 5.56, but still much smaller than the 7.62mm round.

The US had found through its trials that the benefits of a smaller round, through reduced recoil and greater ammo capacity, was far greater than the greater accuracy at range and slightly greater stopping power of a larger round.

I like how this thread is evolving. Meaning going over known issues and what relates to subject at hand. Instead of stats, polls, and personnel feeling getting in the way.

I will notionally hunt your ass down to the end of the Earth dying days....if someone post a 100+ reason why I should own a weapon or a 100+ reasons why I shouldn't own a weapon. Don't be that Guy/Girl

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Posted that last one at 4am, and can't for the life of me remember why I quoted Sebster. I guess I was seeing things that weren't there, my bad.

Happens to all of us

At the guys arguing against the "be prepared" bit, I would rather have the option and never need it, than need it and not have it. It's a small investment that can save your life someday. There could be only 10 home invasions a year, and I would still want the option to be armed. I have the option to carry for self defense after all, why not use it? Best case scenario is I carry my whole life and never draw my weapon once in anger, its not exactly a huge inconvenience or cost a lot. Yes, the difference is one is a weapon and the other is a tool, but the intended use is similar, to save my life in an emergency.

I don't know, maybe it comes with different cultures or living in different countries. I just see it as weird that most people wouldn't carry if they have the option. Its not like America is the only country with a good amount of crime, or has a large distance between you and the cops at times.

I would argue that your reasoning is the product of being very aware of one possible outcome, a violent home invasion, despite it being incredibly rare, statistically speaking, while at the same time being dismissive of other threats from firearms - their use in a heated domestic situation or in a spur of the moment suicide, that are actually much, much more likely.

Not that any of that is a complete argument for any individual not to have a gun in the household. People know the facts of their own lives better than aggregate statistics can state. An individual might be very well aware that they just don't get in to heated family arguments, have never thought about suicide, and live in a crime ridden area.

But taken on the whole, given how many deaths come from heated family arguments, and from suicide, compared to the number of break-ins, the number of people who feel they need to own a gun has to be seen as people really not understanding what the real dangers are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Slarg232 wrote:
Have you made a sacrifice for your country?

Have you written letters to congressmen stating your opinions on issues? Or just posted about it on forums all day?

When did YOU actually do something other than just vote for president/rep/senator?

Last week I sat in a meeting with a minister, and while I sure as hell didn't open my mouth, briefing notes I gave to our CEO were used to make our case for funding initiatives. I was involved, in a small way, in directly shaping public policy. Does that mean everyone needs to bow down and listen to me? No, it doesn't.

In fact, while I could glorify that meeting and use it to claim that it gave me some kind of expertise, I would go so far as to say on the issue being debated that day I wasn't knowledgable at all*, and if people had to just listen to me on that issue they'd likely come away grossly ill-informed. Expertise claimed too often on the internet, while facts and substantive arguments are used too rarely.

In the context of this forum, all you are is words in little posts. If you have expertise, then show it, don't claim it.



*All I did really was produce a list of what it cost to deliver a certain service. What it should cost and why I couldn't tell you at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
And people say that there arent many guns in Australia??

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/22738028/smuggling-ring-sent-guns-from-nashville-to-australia

Sure, there arent as many per capita when compared to us, but they are there, and if it's a big enough business to have 2 countries working together to break up a smuggling ring, well then theres a problem for sure.

We're talking about countries here. On that scale everything exists to some extent. The issue is only one of scale. And, basically, on the scale of very few guns to very many guns, Australia is at one end and the US is at the other.

Not that there isn't a whole lot wrong with Australia's gun laws (the registries are woefully insufficient to track firearms over time, and there's all kinds of regulations in place that do nothing but annoy legal gun owners). But in terms of scale, our gun problem is very small, and yours is very big.

But taken on the whole, given how many deaths come from heated family arguments, and from suicide, compared to the number of break-ins, the number of people who feel they need to own a gun has to be seen as people really not understanding what the real dangers are.

Good point but I want to clarify the bit at the end. People perception of "danger" going to different from you or anyone else regardless. I'm a firm believer in training. I do not have an issue of a 40 hour block of instruction on weapon responsibility and the...going to say this but hold onto to your hats boys and girls. Escalation of Force to Deadly Force.

Three days ago...I live at the end of cul de sac....we had a guy get brought in by taxi just in his hospital gown....get off at the wrong house and tried to enter my neighbor house. I wasn't aware of it till "Johnny" banged on my door..causing me to streak Meph. red across the eagle...anyway the neighbors knows I'm armed. SO I went to second floor of my house with "Johnny" and got visual on the guy. Instead of a fire arm I got my medic bag...he reopen his chest wound and had me a good bleeder....other indicator was he was on some serious pain meds due to size of wound...and the weaving bit...he was "no factor" in my book...even though I'm weak as all Hell from Chemo...PTSD running a bit wild due to the fireworks. I just identified my self to him and straight out told him I was medic. One trauma bandage later and the sheriffs showed up from the 911 call.

Info I got later confirmed
Guy was in severe MVA
Chest wound from a tree branch
On serious pain meds
He gave the wrong address

Slarq

Have you made a sacrifice for your country?
Have you written letters to congressmen stating your opinions on issues? Or just posted about it on forums all day?
When did YOU actually do something other than just vote for president/rep/senator?

Do not pit the vets against someone who didn't serve. Everybody has that option to join the military. Its a career choice. The thread will really get out of hand and there be some pissed off people after it gets locked. So far the "vets" and the "minions" --->insert Loki laughter here version 2.3<--- are doing good.

Just random funny fact from talking about this video with a coworker last night (or at least I though it was a bit funny):

I'm the socialist European liberal, he is the redneck conservative (we are good friends so we wear out labels for each other openly). Yet somehow I am the one with shogun, rifles, pistol and he doesn't own a single firearm.

He does have a bow, but wouldn't tell me if it is an assault bow...

Depends if he can fire three arrows at the same time....reminds me...when does the new season of arrow begins...must go look...also Johnny Depp as Tonto was a GOOD choice

 Jihadin wrote:
Good point but I want to clarify the bit at the end. People perception of "danger" going to different from you or anyone else regardless. I'm a firm believer in training. I do not have an issue of a 40 hour block of instruction on weapon responsibility and the...going to say this but hold onto to your hats boys and girls. Escalation of Force to Deadly Force.

Fair point.

 Jihadin wrote:

But taken on the whole, given how many deaths come from heated family arguments, and from suicide, compared to the number of break-ins, the number of people who feel they need to own a gun has to be seen as people really not understanding what the real dangers are.

Good point but I want to clarify the bit at the end. People perception of "danger" going to different from you or anyone else regardless. I'm a firm believer in training. I do not have an issue of a 40 hour block of instruction on weapon responsibility and the...going to say this but hold onto to your hats boys and girls. Escalation of Force to Deadly Force.

Three days ago...I live at the end of cul de sac....we had a guy get brought in by taxi just in his hospital gown....get off at the wrong house and tried to enter my neighbor house. I wasn't aware of it till "Johnny" banged on my door..causing me to streak Meph. red across the eagle...anyway the neighbors knows I'm armed. SO I went to second floor of my house with "Johnny" and got visual on the guy. Instead of a fire arm I got my medic bag...he reopen his chest wound and had me a good bleeder....other indicator was he was on some serious pain meds due to size of wound...and the weaving bit...he was "no factor" in my book...even though I'm weak as all Hell from Chemo...PTSD running a bit wild due to the fireworks. I just identified my self to him and straight out told him I was medic. One trauma bandage later and the sheriffs showed up from the 911 call.

Info I got later confirmed
Guy was in severe MVA
Chest wound from a tree branch
On serious pain meds
He gave the wrong address

Slarq

Wait a minute... what kind of horrible hospital would discharge a patient in that condition?

Could be lots of reasons, including:

1) No insurance and "stable enough"
2) Escaped the hospital

 Fafnir wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

But taken on the whole, given how many deaths come from heated family arguments, and from suicide, compared to the number of break-ins, the number of people who feel they need to own a gun has to be seen as people really not understanding what the real dangers are.

Good point but I want to clarify the bit at the end. People perception of "danger" going to different from you or anyone else regardless. I'm a firm believer in training. I do not have an issue of a 40 hour block of instruction on weapon responsibility and the...going to say this but hold onto to your hats boys and girls. Escalation of Force to Deadly Force.

Three days ago...I live at the end of cul de sac....we had a guy get brought in by taxi just in his hospital gown....get off at the wrong house and tried to enter my neighbor house. I wasn't aware of it till "Johnny" banged on my door..causing me to streak Meph. red across the eagle...anyway the neighbors knows I'm armed. SO I went to second floor of my house with "Johnny" and got visual on the guy. Instead of a fire arm I got my medic bag...he reopen his chest wound and had me a good bleeder....other indicator was he was on some serious pain meds due to size of wound...and the weaving bit...he was "no factor" in my book...even though I'm weak as all Hell from Chemo...PTSD running a bit wild due to the fireworks. I just identified my self to him and straight out told him I was medic. One trauma bandage later and the sheriffs showed up from the 911 call.

Info I got later confirmed
Guy was in severe MVA
Chest wound from a tree branch
On serious pain meds
He gave the wrong address

Slarq

Wait a minute... what kind of horrible hospital would discharge a patient in that condition?

A hospital who received a patient with no way to pay them. They're required to give you the bare minimum of treatment, and then they can kick you out if you don't have the money.

He walked out. Was not under supervision. This guy was so duped he was slurring simple words as I was talking to him. Point I was making that a lot of incidents can be avoided by assessing the situation first before going in anticipating a shot out. Or say racking a round into the chamber of a weapon being a side arm, AR15/M4 or shotgun is loud enough to inform the intruder that he walked into a bad situation...also the "I'm armed" helps further the Flight mode....not if Imdumbasarock decides to hang then that tells me he's going to take a chance with me.

 sebster wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Now, if your point is that home invasions in general are not all that common, I would say it's not unreasonable to warrant some consideration, because the consequences of a home invasion for which you have no ability whatsoever to defend against (such as the woman in the video that Lordhat posted) are so dire that it's not as insane as you think to have a gun for defensive purposes. I'm also considering the fact that guns, including AR-15s, have many uses outside of home defense, including recreational shooting, hunting, and pest control.

My point is not just that home invasions are uncommon (though there is an important point to be made that people way underestimate the rate of domestic shootings and suicides by firearm, while way overstating the risk of home invasion), but that home invasions that turn in to a shoot outs are even rarer. As such, any argument that makes a case for overwhelming firepower in case a shoot out breaks out is arguing for protection against an astronomically event.

Thing is, if a person said 'I own an AR-15 and support all other people owning AR-15s because they're great for target shooting, hunting (though I thought 5.56 was a bad round for hunting?), pest control, and because I know I will put a round on target across a room if I have to in a home defence situation', then great, that's an argument with plenty of basis. But the argument that a person might need an AR-15 because the home invader(s) might engage in a gun battle and so he needs to ensure he has greater firepower is pretty silly. And that's the only point I was making.

As far as hunting goes, certain people in the news media in America love to come on and claim that AR-15s and the like are useless for hunting, but it's really not true at all. A more truthful statement would be that it's not the best for hunting everything, something which is true of many guns. The 5.56/.223 round is an excellent varmint hunting round for things like coyotes and groundhogs. It also would be good for wild boar, and it is legal to hunt all these things with an AR-15 in my state. Somewhat strangely, outside of with a property destruction permit, my state doesn't allow deer hunting with any kind of rifle (you have to use a shotgun with a rifled slug, a high-caliber handgun at .357 or above, or a bow or crossbow). Most states do allow for taking deer with a rifle, however, and while an AR-15 would not be the most ideal rifle for deer, it is certainly possible to take a deer with one, and people do. I think part of the problem is many of the people who criticize the AR-15 most vigorously also don't really understand the difference between semi-automatic and fully automatic, and imagine someone hunting with an AR-15 would be machine-gunning game animals by dumping 30 rounds into them on one go, when really you'd be taking slow, well-aimed single shots, and depending on state laws, would likely be using a much smaller magazine anyway.

 sebster wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

Now that that's over: In addition, from this point on, I'm also going to require a little respect, something I will be more than happy to reciprocate.

Look, we were bashing our heads. It seemed to me you were just repeating your initial point over and over, and it left me just repeating my own. This last post of yours expanded your point, and I think it helped clarify things to the poitn where we have, more or less a rough agreement. Thanks for that.

Fair enough. In retrospect, I was attempting to be concise when I probably would have been better off going into more detail sooner, and was just getting rubbed the wrong way by the whole exchange. Cheers, and no hard feelings!

JWhex wrote:
Using a high powered rifle in a home defense scenario defies all common sense. You are likely to injure someone else in the home or a neighbor.

Good grief buy a shotgun, then you (likely not trained for combat shooting) have a chance of hitting what you are aiming at and not killing the baby asleep across the hall.

Hi there Joe Biden
Are you still likely to injure a neighbour if you live on acres of land? Or with the nearest neighbour miles away? Granted I live in a neigbourhood with mainly drywall houses, and in fairly close proximity so my needing a rifle is unlikely. But I also don't need a sports car, a van, or a semi but I'm not going to stop the people who need them because I don't.
I'm not trained for combat shooting. I never held a rile until last weekend when we went to the range for my 30th birthday and I tried an M4. With iron sights I put the first round through the head area of the target. Followed by 6 more rounds in the head area.

 purplefood wrote:
I can understand a pistol. That makes sense, I wouldn't be opposed to having one myself. When it comes to things like semi-automatic rifles and the like... well it seems a bit over the top really.

Rifles are more accurate because of a number of factors - you have a longer barrel than a pistol, you have better sights than a pistol, and you have better control over the recoil of a rifle on account of the grip, hand guard and the stock.

 Jihadin wrote:
I want to bring up though if someone was armed when that British soldier got hacked to death....would you have stopped it?

I honestly cannot imagine not trying to help that guy, armed or not.

I think it is pretty obvious that if the UK had concealed carry gun laws, there might have been someone around to threaten or shoot the two guys who stabbed the soldier, and if he or she had a gun it would probably have been used because you don't carry a gun to not use it.

He was run over and stabbed quickly before a passer-by might have been able to do anything, though.

@sebster that is a good point. Its kind of a non issue for me since I'm on good terms with my family, single, and despite being poor, have a good life. That can be a very real issue for others though.

I will also admit that I wish there would be more mandatory training when it comes to gun ownership, especially over safety. Some of the just outright stupid mistakes you see in the news could have been solved by a 20 minute safety video and a decent dose of common sense. A good deal of them could have been avoided just by following the 4 basic rules of gun safety. Others by talking to your kids, or by keeping your guns unloaded and locked up when you have company over. If I remember correctly, the amount of people who die from an accident beyond their control (as in gun just randomly explodes) are very low.

Tying it in with the hunting, I thought the reason many states ban rifles for hunting is because the rounds can go so far. In Kentucky you can hunt with a rifle, but we have a lot of hills and hollars, so its unlikely a bullet will go very far. I could see a state like Kansas banning hunting with rifles due to a lack of good backstops to stop the round.

It is funny that controlling firearms is like computer security:

If you can make it completely safe, it will be completely unusable.

The Canada rule for guns is: trigger lock, locked case, gun safe, separately locked ammo.
Ask intruder to make a pot of coffee as I get armed.

I can sometimes get behind the right to bear arms since our government (or more correctly, enforcement agencies) seems to like to change the rules as they go.

An example:
I personally have a Katana and have taken Kendo for quite a few years so I really hope that an intruder would not have a gun...

Have you a link for that please?

I assume the link wanted is the laws for Canada:

Firearms Act:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-11.6/index.html#docCont

Section 101 under "inspection" is particularly interesting:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-11.6/page-29.html#docCont

Here is the story of the guns being taken:
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/06/29/matt-gurney-high-river-citizens-right-to-be-suspicious-as-rcmp-changes-story-over-removal-of-guns/

I have seen so many times that the people who are to enforce the law do not have a good grasp of it.
Should have them take the bar like the lawyers before they get their badge.

I am also on the side of more required safety training, but there are some people that just can't be trained.

We had a teenager in my state this week that was so sure that his rifle was unloaded that he demonstrated it by sticking it in his mouth and pulling the trigger.

I will let you guess what happened next.

You can lead the horse to mandatory safety classes, but you can't fix stupid.

 Hordini wrote:
As far as hunting goes, certain people in the news media in America love to come on and claim that AR-15s and the like are useless for hunting, but it's really not true at all. A more truthful statement would be that it's not the best for hunting everything, something which is true of many guns. The 5.56/.223 round is an excellent varmint hunting round for things like coyotes and groundhogs. It also would be good for wild boar, and it is legal to hunt all these things with an AR-15 in my state. Somewhat strangely, outside of with a property destruction permit, my state doesn't allow deer hunting with any kind of rifle (you have to use a shotgun with a rifled slug, a high-caliber handgun at .357 or above, or a bow or crossbow). Most states do allow for taking deer with a rifle, however, and while an AR-15 would not be the most ideal rifle for deer, it is certainly possible to take a deer with one, and people do. I think part of the problem is many of the people who criticize the AR-15 most vigorously also don't really understand the difference between semi-automatic and fully automatic, and imagine someone hunting with an AR-15 would be machine-gunning game animals by dumping 30 rounds into them on one go, when really you'd be taking slow, well-aimed single shots, and depending on state laws, would likely be using a much smaller magazine anyway.

Ah, thanks. I'd heard the 5.56 round didn't penetrate a deer's flesh sufficiently (because it is much denser than our own), and bigger rounds were preferred. But it makes sense now that you've pointed it out that deer isn't the only kind of hunting, and an AR-15 might not be ideal, but it works well enough in most cases. Thanks.

That state law prohibiting hunting with a rifle sounds really strange. What's the logic behind it, if there is any?

Fair enough. In retrospect, I was attempting to be concise when I probably would have been better off going into more detail sooner, and was just getting rubbed the wrong way by the whole exchange. Cheers, and no hard feelings!

Is cool. And thanks for posting that bit to calm the conversation down, it was going to a bad place and I wasn't doing anything to stop it. Much credit to you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
@sebster that is a good point. Its kind of a non issue for me since I'm on good terms with my family, single, and despite being poor, have a good life. That can be a very real issue for others though.

Yeah. It's really is a case of making the judgement according to your own personal circumstances. It's just that to make that judgement, people need to know the stats, and those numbers get lost all too often in these debates.