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.

Hordini wrote:

Did you know it's not illegal to buy a tank in the US? It's just normally prohibitively expensive. Getting ammunition for the main gun would probably be tricky though.

Yes, it's the same in the UK. However, the kinds of vehicles allowed on the road are defined and restricted by law, which is my general point.

 Seaward wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Agreed, the gun-debate isn't a black and white subject people are all over the spectrum in terms of what they want with gun control to turn this issue into an anti-gun vs pro-gun debate is a gross oversimplification and shows a lack of understanding and knowledge on the topic at hand.

Yet we're perfectly fine reducing complex problems to black-and-white descriptors with anti-abortion and anti-homosexual positions.

Curious.

Well there isn't much room for debate with abortion it's basically a discussion about whether it's right or wrong to remove a fetus or embryo from the uterus or what situations makes it justifiable or unjustifiable then add a couple of reasons for why you came to that conclusion. Most high

income nations have already discussed the issue of homophobia and it seems most agree that it's a bad thing and it's probably not a position you would want to defend anyways.

 whembly wrote:
-People forget that the Battles of Lexington and Concord were prompted by an attempt by the British to take away our arms.

None of the Intolerable Acts called for the seizing of firearms. The dissolving of the Massachussets congress didn't call for the seizure of weapons.

I mean, the initial military actions were an attempt to destroy militia supplies, but comparing that to a government attempt to sieze firearms is something of a stretch - by that point it was a military operation against another military, destroying their means to war is kind of the point. Otherwise you could argue the first Gulf War, which began with targetted strikes against Iraqi command and control positions and thereby destroy their means to fight, was an attempt by the UN to sieze the arms of Iraqis.

-Keep in mind that, historically governments have taken guns away from groups they hated.

That's one of those half true things that really misses the point. The bigger point is that tyrants rule not by themselves, but through the consent of some element of the population, either a majority or a minority. Hitler's firearm reforms took weapons away from Jews, but expanded ownership rights for everyone else.

Have a look at this thread, and look at the torture thread. Try finding people who believe they need guns to protect their liberty, who are also concerned about the use of torture by their government.

-Probably most importantly... you cannot always trust the government to defend you.

No, but there's always those really big oceans to do that for you.

Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
That is some epic not-logic you've posted right there.

Your argument's with the Supreme Court, then, who've likewise decided that the Second Amendment does not in fact state that membership in a militia is not a requirement for firearm ownership.

I think some wires are getting crossed here... my point has nothing to do with a militia... my point is that there is an underlying reason why the 2nd amendment exists, and without knowledge of what that reason is, the right it grants is arbitrary. In other words, "Cuz it sez so!" isn't really an argument that coincides with the concept of a "living document" like the US Constitution. You have to justify why you need those firearms, and I think it's very hard to justify needing an LMG.

Seaward wrote:

Firearms, however, have a singular use: to propel a lethal projectile at a target. So if you want to say your reason is "defense", well I'm pretty sure that if you fail to defend yourself from a mugger with a 6-round .38s, then another ten rounds won't help you.

You say this from vast experience with close quarters firefights and general self-defense? The considerable and unfortunately all-too-common inaccuracy of that statement really would deserve its own thread if it hadn't had one about six times in the past couple months.

And my point is that if you've fired off 6 rounds and not hit your attacker, then I hope I'm nowhere near your 15 rounds of spray-and-pray. It's not the firearms that I'm concerned about; not remotely. It's the wanton irresponsibility of large groups of American gun culture that I find terrifying. One poster on Dakka even admitted that they keep firearms on the floor in a house with toddlers. If someone is that irresponsible with their own children, then I have good reason to be nervous about living in a society where that person has access to a machine gun. (and I have never been in a gunfight. But I have been in 2 knife fights and a handful of street/bar fights, and I'm still pretty, so I must know what I'm doing on some level of self-defense)

Seaward wrote:None of which matters at all, of course, to the context of the current discussion, which was an Aussie asking about the militia part of the Second Amendment. Anyone who's making the, "Nuh uh, it's for militias only!" argument is going to be, by default, anti-gun.

What about people like me that just want to see firearms laws coincide more with those of Canada?

 azazel the cat wrote:
I think some wires are getting crossed here... my point has nothing to do with a militia... my point is that there is an underlying reason why the 2nd amendment exists, and without knowledge of what that reason is, the right it grants is arbitrary. In other words, "Cuz it sez so!" isn't really an argument that coincides with the concept of a "living document" like the US Constitution. You have to justify why you need those firearms, and I think it's very hard to justify needing an LMG.

Constitutionally speaking, no. The amendment could read, "Cheese being delicious, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," and it wouldn't change the fact that it's a prohibition on the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. How people who believe the Constitution to be a "living document" would, certainly, change, but I consider that fairly irrelevant, as I do not consider it to be such.

And my point is that if you've fired off 6 rounds and not hit your attacker, then I hope I'm nowhere near your 15 rounds of spray-and-pray.

What if I fire off six rounds and hit with all of them, but not dropped my attacker? It's certainly happened. It's not even all that uncommon. The human body is extremely resilient, and handgun rounds are weak and inefficient. Unless you hit a very small part of it, you're not going to instantly kill or incapacitate someone. This is why all credible self-defense instructors teach you to shoot until the threat is no longer a threat.

What about people like me that just want to see firearms laws coincide more with those of Canada?

From what little I recall of Canadian gun laws, they're basically similar to New York's before New York took an even bigger bite of crazy. I'd call it pretty anti-gun.

Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
I think some wires are getting crossed here... my point has nothing to do with a militia... my point is that there is an underlying reason why the 2nd amendment exists, and without knowledge of what that reason is, the right it grants is arbitrary. In other words, "Cuz it sez so!" isn't really an argument that coincides with the concept of a "living document" like the US Constitution. You have to justify why you need those firearms, and I think it's very hard to justify needing an LMG.

Constitutionally speaking, no. The amendment could read, "Cheese being delicious, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," and it wouldn't change the fact that it's a prohibition on the infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. How people who believe the Constitution to be a "living document" would, certainly, change, but I consider that fairly irrelevant, as I do not consider it to be such.

In that case, I assume you define "arms" to mean muskets, and have disposed of all your illegal non-musket firearms?

Seaward wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:And my point is that if you've fired off 6 rounds and not hit your attacker, then I hope I'm nowhere near your 15 rounds of spray-and-pray.

What if I fire off six rounds and hit with all of them, but not dropped my attacker? It's certainly happened. It's not even all that uncommon. The human body is extremely resilient, and handgun rounds are weak and inefficient. Unless you hit a very small part of it, you're not going to instantly kill or incapacitate someone. This is why all credible self-defense instructors teach you to shoot until the threat is no longer a threat.

I think you've missed my point. My fear is not a weapon's ability to deliver a successfully lethal volley; it is with people who have access to such weapons and believe themselves, unpracticed, to be Rambo incarnate.

Seaward wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:What about people like me that just want to see firearms laws coincide more with those of Canada?

From what little I recall of Canadian gun laws, they're basically similar to New York's before New York took an even bigger bite of crazy. I'd call it pretty anti-gun.

Hardly.

In Canada, full-auto is prohibited, as well as sawed-off barrels. Can't have center-fire magazines in excess of 5 rounds for semi-auto long guns, 10 rounds for semi-auto handguns. Must have a license which requires a safety course, a test that's virtually impossible to fail, and about a 30 day wait that includes a background check. Firearms must be securely locked up, unloaded, behind 2 locks (trigger & gun safe, for example) or else disassembled.

There is absolutely no legal use someone can come up with that requires more firepower than is already permissible under the above guidelines; and the emphasis of our laws is around education and storage of firearms; not procurement.

 azazel the cat wrote:
There is absolutely no legal use someone can come up with that requires more firepower than is already permissible under the above guidelines;

Of course there is. Again, this assumption that it will only ever take a round or two to stop a threat is pure Hollywood.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Hordini wrote:

Did you know it's not illegal to buy a tank in the US? It's just normally prohibitively expensive. Getting ammunition for the main gun would probably be tricky though.

Yes, it's the same in the UK. However, the kinds of vehicles allowed on the road are defined and restricted by law, which is my general point.

Technically, many things are not illegal to buy with the appropriate licenses and enough chase. The tank without the gun is purely a money issue as long as the purchaser is fine not getting all the wiz-bang military grade sensors and optics. The gun requires a class III FFL because it is a destructive device and a $200 tax stamp. In addition, each round of ammunition because of size also requires a $200 tax stamp and the associated FFL license.

If it's designated as farm equipment and isn't destroying the road, it would be allowed on any road other than interstates or other restricted areas.

Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
There is absolutely no legal use someone can come up with that requires more firepower than is already permissible under the above guidelines;

Of course there is. Again, this assumption that it will only ever take a round or two to stop a threat is pure Hollywood.

This is the Beretta Px4 Storm. It holds 10 rounds of .45 ACP and Canadian border guards all use this. It is perfectly legal for civilian use.


This is the Beretta 96FS. It holds 10 rounds of .40 S&W and RCMP officers all use this. It is perfectly legal for civilian use.


For some goofy reason, even law enforcement officers only seem to carry semi-automatic handguns.

Wanna go hunting? You'll find that every type of hunting rifle under the sun is legal in Canada (even though real hunters wouldn't need to use more than a bow).

Need to defend yourself? You'll find that almost all non-sawed-off shotguns and semi-automatic handguns are legal in Canada (with the exception of Derringers).

So again, tell me about what exactly is attacking you that you feel you need a weapon that is not legal under the Canadian laws. Please, give me a specific situation or type of attack that you feel you cannot defend against without the use of an M249.

EDIT: And you still haven't told me whether or not you've disposed of all your non-musket firearms, since you don't consider the US Constitution to be a "living document", and its original definition of arms was limited to just muskets and edged weapons.

 azazel the cat wrote:

EDIT: And you still haven't told me whether or not you've disposed of all your non-musket firearms, since you don't consider the US Constitution to be a "living document", and its original definition of arms was limited to just muskets and edged weapons.

Wait...wut?

It's not limited to just muskets and edged weapons.

That's like saying.. .you can only write political expression (free speech) on the old printing press...but, the interweb doesn't have protected speech.

 azazel the cat wrote:
So again, tell me about what exactly is attacking you that you feel you need a weapon that is not legal under the Canadian laws. Please, give me a specific situation or type of attack that you feel you cannot defend against without the use of an M249.

Who's talking about machine guns? I'm talking about 15-round Glock 22s. No one's ever come out the other side of a fight wishing he'd had fewer bullets, and there's a very real reason the overwhelming majority of American law enforcement organizations prefer sidearms with capacities in the 13 to 17 range.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Neither side is innocent of making silly sweeping generalizations.

Entirely true. However, that doesn't mean you can't have a serious debate on the matter and try and ignore the idiots on both sides. No matter what American political "debate" might seem to indicate, slinging insults and sweeping generalisations at one another isn't debate.

Such use of calm, facts and logic have no place here!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:
What complicates things is the fact that the right to bear arms is a constitutional right guaranteed to law-abiding citizens. It's hard to get people to like the idea that they only get access to their rights if they can pass a test, buy a license, afford insurance, and so on.

And thats why its different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
There is absolutely no legal use someone can come up with that requires more firepower than is already permissible under the above guidelines;

Of course there is. Again, this assumption that it will only ever take a round or two to stop a threat is pure Hollywood.

This is the Beretta Px4 Storm. It holds 10 rounds of .45 ACP and Canadian border guards all use this. It is perfectly legal for civilian use.


This is the Beretta 96FS. It holds 10 rounds of .40 S&W and RCMP officers all use this. It is perfectly legal for civilian use.


For some goofy reason, even law enforcement officers only seem to carry semi-automatic handguns.

Wanna go hunting? You'll find that every type of hunting rifle under the sun is legal in Canada (even though real hunters wouldn't need to use more than a bow).

Need to defend yourself? You'll find that almost all non-sawed-off shotguns and semi-automatic handguns are legal in Canada (with the exception of Derringers).

So again, tell me about what exactly is attacking you that you feel you need a weapon that is not legal under the Canadian laws. Please, give me a specific situation or type of attack that you feel you cannot defend against without the use of an M249.

EDIT: And you still haven't told me whether or not you've disposed of all your non-musket firearms, since you don't consider the US Constitution to be a "living document", and its original definition of arms was limited to just muskets and edged weapons.

You know you just cracked up and revealed your ignorance right? People aren't out there buying legal automatic weapons.
ITS ALREADY RESTRICTED!

Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
So again, tell me about what exactly is attacking you that you feel you need a weapon that is not legal under the Canadian laws. Please, give me a specific situation or type of attack that you feel you cannot defend against without the use of an M249.

Who's talking about machine guns? I'm talking about 15-round Glock 22s. No one's ever come out the other side of a fight wishing he'd had fewer bullets, and there's a very real reason the overwhelming majority of American law enforcement organizations prefer sidearms with capacities in the 13 to 17 range.

I want you to find me an instance of a person who was able to withstand 10 rounds of .40 S&W or .45 ACP and continued to fight.

Also, did you miss the part about the focus in Canadian firearms laws is around education, safety and storage? As is, we like to make sure that our firearms owners understand how to care for their guns, understand how to use them safely and effectively, and how to store them so that unintended use is reduced to an absolute minimum.

What is it with the American zeitgeist of thinking "backgrounds checks, safety training and locking up your guns" = "take away my guns"?


EDIT: Yes, Frazzled, I am well aware that full-auto machine guns are already restricted in the US. I am using machine guns to serve as a point in asking the question of what the mindset is that makes a person think something of that calibre (pun unintended) is necessary for self-defense. I'm not asking a question about the legality of such, as I'm aware that no new machine guns are being manufactured or sold for civilian use, and it has been the case for more than 15 years. I'm asking a question of the desire for those firearms. Specifically, I want to know just what is the honest mindset of a person -do they feel impotent or paranoid or something else- that makes a person believe that they needed an LMG for home use. But it's nice to see how desperate you are to try and find something to discredit me in hopes of invalidating my inquiry.

FURTHER EDIT: The really funny part is that I actually have a gun license and am very pro-gun. I'm just very anti- little-man-needs-to-feel-powerful, and very anti- crazy-man-wants-a-gun-because-it's-his-right and particularly anti- moron-wants-a-dangerous-tool-so-he-can-be-a-danger-to-his-neighbours

 azazel the cat wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
So again, tell me about what exactly is attacking you that you feel you need a weapon that is not legal under the Canadian laws. Please, give me a specific situation or type of attack that you feel you cannot defend against without the use of an M249.

Who's talking about machine guns? I'm talking about 15-round Glock 22s. No one's ever come out the other side of a fight wishing he'd had fewer bullets, and there's a very real reason the overwhelming majority of American law enforcement organizations prefer sidearms with capacities in the 13 to 17 range.

I want you to find me an instance of a person who was able to withstand 10 rounds of .40 S&W or .45 ACP and continued to fight.

Also, did you miss the part about the focus in Canadian firearms laws is around education, safety and storage? As is, we like to make sure that our firearms owners understand how to care for their guns, understand how to use them safely and effectively, and how to store them so that unintended use is reduced to an absolute minimum.

What is it with the American zeitgeist of thinking "backgrounds checks, safety training and locking up your guns" = "take away my guns"?

1. There are lots and lots of reports on that. I'm not going to pull them as they are ususally attached to graphic images I don't need to see. Having said that NY police statistics thumbnail is: 3-4 shots to make a hit (this is within 10 feet). Then 3-4 shots to stop an attacker. Thats trained police. you expect the average housewife to be as good as NY SWAT? AND OF COURSE THAT ASSUMES ONE ATTACKER ONLY.

2. American Zeitgeist. A reasonable person: I have no concern whatseover. But we';re talking the govenrment. ON your three points:
A. background checks. The current background check questions and categories (done by law by the way) are fine. However that can be easily used to add categories and as a defacto ban. Background check requirements are a way states use now to exclude people (or everyone) they don't like for permits. For example, getting a CHL in Texas is a shall issue and the background requirements are generally no different than federal requirements to actually purchase. In NJ its not shall issue and the background test is one method used to exclude pretty much everyone besides the famous or politicians from having such. Thats the fear. I'm personally for a universal background check for all nonfamily transactions through an FFL.

B. Safety training: again no problem if its a simple course you take once, with no test. However this can easily be manipulated into another way to ban firearm ownership. Is it onerous? Is it expensive? Is it government run only? etc. etc.

all these methods have been used in the past to exclude minorities from owning firearms, especially during Jim Crow/KKK days. This should be remembered.
In the US we don't trust the government. The government has shown itself to not be ptrustworthy.

C. Locking up guns - please define that more.

 azazel the cat wrote:
I want you to find me an instance of a person who was able to withstand 10 rounds of .40 S&W or .45 ACP and continued to fight.

How many do you want, exactly? Hell, just last month we had the thread about the guy who got shot six times - mostly in the face - down in Georgia and still was able to run away, hop into his truck, and drive off. Again, you seem to be thinking that .40 or .45 are particularly robust rounds with "stopping power," a concept that, quite simply, doesn't exist in common handgun cartridges. The only thing that will stop an aggressor immediately is incapacitation through a CNS hit - an incredibly small target - or the decision to surrender. And what if there are two aggressors?

Also, did you miss the part about the focus in Canadian firearms laws is around education, safety and storage? As is, we like to make sure that our firearms owners understand how to care for their guns, understand how to use them safely and effectively, and how to store them so that unintended use is reduced to an absolute minimum.

What is it with the American zeitgeist of thinking "backgrounds checks, safety training and locking up your guns" = "take away my guns"?

Taking away guns that have a standard capacity of more than 10 rounds isn't taking away guns? News to me.

EDIT: Yes, Frazzled, I am well aware that full-auto machine guns are already restricted in the US. I am using machine guns to serve as a point in asking the question of what the mindset is that makes a person think something of that calibre (pun unintended) is necessary for self-defense. I'm not asking a question about the legality of such, as I'm aware that no new machine guns are being manufactured or sold for civilian use, and it has been the case for more than 15 years. I'm asking a question of the desire for those firearms. Specifically, I want to know just what is the honest mindset of a person -do they feel impotent or paranoid or something else- that makes a person believe that they needed an LMG for home use. But it's nice to see how desperate you are to try and find something to discredit me in hopes of invalidating my inquiry.

I haven't seen anyone argue that a machine gun is necessary for self-defense. I'm not sure why you're continuing to use it, since nobody's saying it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But hey, just for the sake of killing off this, "You get shot once, you're immediately done!" BS...

First up, cop Peter Soulis and criminal Tim Palmer, wherein Palmer continued to fight despite being shot 22 times with .40 JHPs:

Remarkably, Palmer had taken 22 hits from Soulis' .40-caliber Glock, 17 of which had hit center mass. Despite the fact that the weapon had been loaded with Ranger SXTs considered by many to be one of the best man-stoppers available Palmer lived for more than four minutes after the last shot was fired. His autopsy revealed nothing more than a small amount of alcohol in his bloodstream.

Then there's Officer Steve Chaney, who shot an assailant 11 times with .38 +p JHPs - including one shot to the brain that did not stop him.

The Miami Shootout's pretty well-known for the two criminals fighting through multiple gunshot wounds from the FBI.

Officer Stacy Lim's another one of those, "Huh. How's that work?" cases. She got shot in the heart with a .357 magnum, and then chased down the guy who shot her and shot him back.

Seriously though, how many of these do you want?

Frazzled wrote:1. There are lots and lots of reports on that. I'm not going to pull them as they are ususally attached to graphic images I don't need to see. Having said that NY police statistics thumbnail is: 3-4 shots to make a hit (this is within 10 feet). Then 3-4 shots to stop an attacker. Thats trained police. you expect the average housewife to be as good as NY SWAT? AND OF COURSE THAT ASSUMES ONE ATTACKER ONLY.

Yes, I expect all firearms owners to be practiced and skilled with their firearms. My primary, number-one-with-a-bullet (pun intended this time) concern about firearms owners is catching a stray because some fool has no idea what they're doing when they handle firearms.

2. American Zeitgeist. A reasonable person: I have no concern whatseover. But we';re talking the govenrment. ON your three points:
A. background checks. The current background check questions and categories (done by law by the way) are fine. However that can be easily used to add categories and as a defacto ban. Background check requirements are a way states use now to exclude people (or everyone) they don't like for permits. For example, getting a CHL in Texas is a shall issue and the background requirements are generally no different than federal requirements to actually purchase. In NJ its not shall issue and the background test is one method used to exclude pretty much everyone besides the famous or politicians from having such. Thats the fear. I'm personally for a universal background check for all nonfamily transactions through an FFL.

Sorry... I'm not sure what CHL & FFL are. But thank you for explaining that the actual fear is a ban on owning guns via a bureacratic wall. I suspect that is and will likely always be the disconnect, as in Canada it is a universal background check performed by the federal government.

B. Safety training: again no problem if its a simple course you take once, with no test. However this can easily be manipulated into another way to ban firearm ownership. Is it onerous? Is it expensive? Is it government run only? etc. etc. all these methods have been used in the past to exclude minorities from owning firearms, especially during Jim Crow/KKK days. This should be remembered.
In the US we don't trust the government. The government has shown itself to not be ptrustworthy.

I personally think the Canadian system is too easy to abuse: it is a one-time training course (2 days in length) and requires a test. Trust me when I say that if you fail the test, nobody wants you handling firearms. At all. Ever. It's that kind of test. Anyway, the test is standardized and administered by private companies (pretty much any gun range or store will have the option to take the test there) who will then endorse your score and send it to the federal government. I personally dislike that element because of the chance for abuse, but historically this has been an unfounded worry.

Frazzled wrote: C. Locking up guns - please define that more.

This pertains to storage. In Canada, we are required to keep our firearms secured. The simplified explanation of the law is that all non-restricted firearms (like shotguns) must be secured behind locks, or else disassembled of important parts. "important parts" is defined as a select list of pieces, such as trigger mechanism or barrel. And "locks" is defined as things like trigger locks or a gun safe. Firearms may not be stored loaded. These laws are designed to cut down on exactly the kind of firearms use that nobody wants: children playing with them, accidental firings or thieves gaining easy access during a break-in. Now, these laws are impossible to enforce, unless something bad happens and the police are investigating (such as you report your home being burgled, your guns stolen, and the police ask why they weren't stored in a gun safe)

A common argument against this is that when an intruder gets into your home, you won't have time to access your firearms. However, I counter with the point that if you are not dextrous and calm enough to open up your gun safe and load a magazine under pressure, then I do not believe you are profficient or level-headed enough to operate a firearm in that situation to begin with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Seaward wrote:

Also, did you miss the part about the focus in Canadian firearms laws is around education, safety and storage? As is, we like to make sure that our firearms owners understand how to care for their guns, understand how to use them safely and effectively, and how to store them so that unintended use is reduced to an absolute minimum.

What is it with the American zeitgeist of thinking "backgrounds checks, safety training and locking up your guns" = "take away my guns"?

Taking away guns that have a standard capacity of more than 10 rounds isn't taking away guns? News to me.

Thank you for exemplifying precisely what I'm talking about.

Why don't you read this again. I mentioned:
Background checks ......check.
Safety training ................check.
Locking up your guns ...check.
Taking away guns .........nope. not mentioned.

You responded to:
Background checks ......nope.
Safety training ................nope.
Locking up your guns ...nope.
Taking away guns .........check.

Seaward wrote:But hey, just for the sake of killing off this, "You get shot once, you're immediately done!" BS...

You're incapable of holding a discussion without reducing things to polarized strawmen, aren't you? Have you honestly never noticed that I have never once made a statement to the effet of "done in one"? I simply question the need for excessive magazine sizes, as I consider the fear that "I may be beset upon by a small posse of determined attackers" to be an unreasonable -to the point of mental ilness- fear.

Yes, I expect all firearms owners to be practiced and skilled with their firearms. My primary, number-one-with-a-bullet (pun intended this time) concern about firearms owners is catching a stray because some fool has no idea what they're doing when they handle firearms.

No, you’re somehow expecting them to be more experienced and practiced than trained NY police officers. That’s a pretty damn tall order for your average Joe.

CHL & FFL are.

Gotcha: Concealed Handgun license, Federal Firearms License. FFLs are stores or others that retail firearms and perform federal background checks.

This pertains to storage. In Canada, we are required to keep our firearms secured. The simplified explanation of the law is that all non-restricted firearms (like shotguns) must be secured behind locks, or else disassembled of important parts. "important parts" is defined as a select list of pieces, such as trigger mechanism or barrel. And "locks" is defined as things like trigger locks or a gun safe.

I have no problem with storing firearms when not in use if I have kids. That’s what I have now.

Firearms may not be stored loaded.

Why not? That’s stupid. If they’re locked up, well they’re locked up.

A common argument against this is that when an intruder gets into your home, you won't have time to access your firearms.

This blindingly overlooks (get it hahah!)
1. The time factor. You may have a second only to get a firearm.
2. Alertness. Running around to a safe gives away your position. The BG may already even be in the room.
3. Again, whats this bs with not being loaded? You’re going to load a shotgun shell by shell in the dark?

For the record, I know from one of my SNCOs that when we invaded Grenada there were more then a few guys who refused to go down with a body full of 5.56, and that similar things have happened in the sand box. Albeit the former was mostly thanks to Special K, but it does happen.

 Frazzled wrote:
No, you’re somehow expecting them to be more experienced and practiced than trained NY police officers. That’s a pretty damn tall order for your average Joe.

One of the common posts I've seen around dakka about how gun using citizens put in more time at the range and are better shots than most policemen who, apparently, only do the minimum shooting possible to remain qualified (but hey, at least they are qualified! ). Apparently this is why you all need guns.

So, which is it? Are police unable to hit a barn from the inside while civillians are much better shots, or are citizens going to spray and pray their way through their much needed 40 round extended magazine?

Or is it perhaps that most people exist somewhere in between the two contradictory extremes pro-gun posters seem to think they somehow fall into simultaneously?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
No, you’re somehow expecting them to be more experienced and practiced than trained NY police officers. That’s a pretty damn tall order for your average Joe.

One of the common posts I've seen around dakka about how gun using citizens put in more time at the range and are better shots than most policemen who, apparently, only do the minimum shooting possible to remain qualified (but hey, at least they are qualified! ). Apparently this is why you all need guns.

So, which is it? Are police unable to hit a barn from the inside while civillians are much better shots, or are citizens going to spray and pray their way through their much needed 40 round extended magazine?

Or is it perhaps that most people exist somewhere in between the two contradictory extremes pro-gun posters seem to think they somehow fall into simultaneously?

Because we can.

 whembly wrote:
Because we can.

I shall call this the gun skill uncertainty principle. Where is the Nobel Prize committee when you need it...

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
No, you’re somehow expecting them to be more experienced and practiced than trained NY police officers. That’s a pretty damn tall order for your average Joe.

One of the common posts I've seen around dakka about how gun using citizens put in more time at the range and are better shots than most policemen who, apparently, only do the minimum shooting possible to remain qualified (but hey, at least they are qualified! ). Apparently this is why you all need guns.

So, which is it? Are police unable to hit a barn from the inside while civillians are much better shots, or are citizens going to spray and pray their way through their much needed 40 round extended magazine?

Or is it perhaps that most people exist somewhere in between the two contradictory extremes pro-gun posters seem to think they somehow fall into simultaneously?

Its not either or, and to make it such is sophistry. Using NY statistics we're saying trained shooters - at close range - require 3-4 shots to hit and 3-4 shots to stop one target. Thats 16 shots boys and girls for one person. Unless you have the resources and training you are not going to be to that level. Many shooters worth their spit are, but thats a minority.
Saying just use ten shots from a bigger round have not shot a bigger round, and frankly aren't women with further limitations (on average).

People in Japan and the UK have terrible problems with car drivers equipped with steel belt low profile radials and titanium exhausts. It is the cause of many an un-necessary road death.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
People in Japan and the UK have terrible problems with car drivers equipped with steel belt low profile radials and titanium exhausts. It is the cause of many an un-necessary road death.

Tokyo skid!!!

So we are arguing that we need high capacity magazines because we are bad shots and need to be able to send 12 shots into whatever happens to be around our target (walls, animals, bystanders, kids) so that we can hit them 4 times?

Kilkrazy wrote:People in Japan and the UK have terrible problems with car drivers equipped with steel belt low profile radials and titanium exhausts. It is the cause of many an un-necessary road death.

A few days ago, Vancouver saw its first homicide of the year.



The guy was killed with a sword.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:People in Japan and the UK have terrible problems with car drivers equipped with steel belt low profile radials and titanium exhausts. It is the cause of many an un-necessary road death.

A few days ago, Vancouver saw its first homicide of the year.



The guy was killed with a sword.

I thought the biggest killers were the cyborg Mooses (Meeses?).

Assault sword?

 d-usa wrote:
Assault sword?

Genius!

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Assault sword?

Genius!

Like dis?