You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Vancouver Off-Topic / Current EventsThe off-topic forum for Vancouver, funnies, non-auto centered discussions, WORK SAFE. While the rules are more relaxed here, there are still rules. Please refer to sticky thread in this forum.
that is a misconception as i believe only a handful of states, maybe even only 2 i'm thinking allow fully automatic weapons to be owned by civilians?
As is the perception behind "Black weapons" or Assault rifles, In the states there isnt the stigma there is here in Canada with Assault rifles, i recently watched a documentry that basically summed up how all "Assault" weapons became restricted after the montreal polytechnique massacre
Basically a guy stood in front of a bunch of MP's and asked which guns looked more "threataning" to a panel of people who had no prior knowledge of firearms, the end result was the restriction of guns such as the AR-15, M41A, etc when in reality besides the look, they are no different than a regular hunting rifle
in Canada, these are restricted, IE. you can only take them from your home to a range you have registered to carry it go with the federal government:
However, the SKS, and CZ are completely legal and can be brought anywhere, carried in a vehicle anywhere, etc.
And they are ALL, essentially the same thing as this:
Semi automatic, Magazine/Cartridge fed
Also, in terms of availability the .223 Ammo which the M4 takes is much more expensive than the SKS Ammo, an average person with a valid PAL could buy an SKS and 1000 rounds of Ammunition for under $400
Semi-Automatic != Bolt action
semi-auto is much more devastating solely by the virtue of rate of fire. you could get of at LEAST 5 shots with the semi-auto in the 1 shot from the bolt action...
semi-auto is much more devastating solely by the virtue of rate of fire. you could get of at LEAST 5 shots with the semi-auto in the 1 shot from the bolt action...
thats a bit of a stretch for comparison
Sorry bad pic, but there are plenty of semi auto hunting rifles, moral of the story was guns are banned purely on looks not function Posted via RS Mobile
semi-auto is much more devastating solely by the virtue of rate of fire. you could get of at LEAST 5 shots with the semi-auto in the 1 shot from the bolt action...
thats a bit of a stretch for comparison
By that logic, handguns are more devastating.
Wasn't it reported that he left his carbine in the car and killed the kids with 2 handguns?
Regardless of a .22LR, 1911 .45 or a .223 carbine, guns kill people.
Wasn't it reported that he left his carbine in the car and killed the kids with 2 handguns?
Regardless of a .22LR, 1911 .45 or a .223 carbine, guns kill people.
in close range like that, a handgun would be more devastating... it's a close range gun meant for use in short to medium range and indoors.
and i'm not denying the fact that guns kill people. only reason i would have a gun would be for historical value (wwii buff) or for hunting. and they would always be stored properly..
i just thought it was silly to compare an assault rifle to a bolt action rifle.
but hondaracer clarified that it was just an example, so that issue is moot.
Related: local news reporting that the shooter in Clakamas Town Center (Oregon) decided to end shooting spree and shoot himself after he was confronted by a legal gun carrying citizen.
Funny how none of the national media like CNN are running this story.
Reports from the elementary school shooting indicate that staff at the school ran and charged at the shooter bare handed, in attempts to stop him. The situation could have been very different if a responsible staffer was carrying.
I recommend everyone at least listen to and understand the statistics James Yeager (firearms trainer, former law enforcement) states in this video. These stats are pulled from actual shootings.
There are two aspects that we need to look at here. One is the long-term, and one is the short-term. In the long-term, tighter gun control is a great portion of the solution. Unfortunately since this shooting seems to have been done with legally acquired guns (though not owned by the shooter himself--early reports say they were his mom's), gun control is not always the answer. Like has been said by many others: crazy people are crazy and will do crazy things to do crazy things.
The second aspect is in the short-term. The situation now. And as far as that goes, having people with the capability to be armed is not necessarily a terrible idea. Those of you who know me will know that I'm hardly a pro-gun person, but I admit realities; in the US, when you ban guns from somewhere, you're only banning the people who care enough to follow the law from carrying guns. And with the number of guns in the US, it's inevitable that someone, somewhere will be carrying a gun somewhere around you during your day or your week.
What's been mentioned elsewhere in this thread is the difference between Canadian and American attitudes towards firearms, and I think it comes from the sense of entitlement Americans have. Canadians require (relative to the Americans) quite a bit of effort and energy in order to get a firearms license. Having these requirements reminds people that a gun is not "just something you carry around with you all the time", it forces people to think about it. In the US in many states when you turn 18 (or 21) you can buy a rifle or handgun, often without training or a background check. This leads to a very casual attitude to guns rather than the respect that they deserve.
America will never get rid of guns, nor of the second amendment. But hopefully, they'll gain a little bit of sense and moderate things a bit.
Funny how none of the national media like CNN are running this story.
Reports from the elementary school shooting indicate that staff at the school ran and charged at the shooter bare handed, in attempts to stop him. The situation could have been very different if a responsible staffer was carrying.
I recommend everyone at least listen to and understand the statistics James Yeager (firearms trainer, former law enforcement) states in this video. These stats are pulled from actual shootings.
It's kinda like introducing a new animal to an environment to control the population of another species. All you're doing is creating a never ending cycle of replacing one thing with another.
It's kinda like introducing a new animal to an environment to control the population of another species. All you're doing is creating a never ending cycle of replacing one thing with another.
I'm perfectly open to having a discussion on the pros and cons of each possible solution.
Many people (especially parents) have a problem with arming staff or teachers. It is not the perfect solution. However under given circumstances in America it seems like a worthwhile thought.
Locking down schools with increased barriers from entry is not a solution. This shooter was the son of a teacher at the school. He was even required to be buzzed in at the front door. Parents as well as other relatives of staff or students will always demand access to their child's school, so locking out all outsiders is impractical.
Arming a select number of staff at a school can be a logical solution using proper training. Parents trust teachers and administrators to be responsible around their children, it's not a stretch to trust them with your child's security. Even just arming several admistrators like a principal and select other few could be a benefit. Law enforcement are a reactionary force with a response time of 3-10 minutes depending on location and city. The fastest response would be to have someone prepared already inside the school. Remember that in this shooting, police arrived after the shooter had already shot himself and ended the event.
I'd like to point out the problems Israel had with terrorists attacking their schools. It is the same as a psychotic active shooter situation. To prevent them, Israel began arming their teachers and having parents as armed guards. In 2002, a terrorist attempted a shooting attack on an Israeli school, but was stopped by armed civilians at the school before he had any chance to do harm.
To everyone that believes tighter gun control is the answer for America, think about how it would need to be implemented, how much it would cost, and how effective it could truly be. There is almost one gun in America for every American citizen. To take away all those guns would be on a scale no government, even America, could ever try to take on.
Everyone needs to read about Chicago gun violence. The state of Illinois has the tightest gun control in all of America. Handguns are banned in Chicago. Yet shooting violence with handguns in Chicago is some of the highest in the country.
This is all ignoring a major fact: the only people that obey the law are law abiding citizens. Law abiding sheep believe gun control will work for America because they all follow the law. Criminals and psychopaths do not obey the law. If they ban guns, they will use black market guns or turn to homemade bombs.
For anyone arguing that knife attacks are less deadly than shooting incidents with China as evidence, needs to look at the facts. For the majority of China knife attacks of recent year, they were conducted with meat cleavers. Cleavers are poor penetrators. The way to kill someone with a gun or a knife is to reach the heart or brain. a standard 6 inch chef's knife used as a stabbing weapon is just as deadly as a gun. Knives require no training to use, they never malfunction, they don't need to be reloaded, and they don't make noise.
You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.
It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you know the name of a single *victim* of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.
CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.
You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem. You can help by turning off the news.
I totally agree. I wish for the next massacre, the media wouldn't even inform anyone. Really, what good is informing people going to do? Children are dead, the shooter is dead, nothing anybody can do.it's not like the guy lived and there's a warrant for him. Why create such a frenzie? - cause media make money from it.
As for gun control, my 2 cents. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
How many of us have played GTA and gone on killing sprees? I've shot people, picked up hookers made the car rock, then run over the hooker and get my money back, set people on fire, throw grenades, etc. Doesn't mean I would do that in real life.
However, a crazy person will. You can't take a gun from his hands, but you can silence their actions.
Just don't report it. OR.. Toss everyone with mental problems off a cliff. Posted via RS Mobile
There was another public shooting this morning, this time at St. Vincent’s Hospital in Birmingham, Ala.
The incident happened around 4am. Police Sergeant Johnny Williams tells FOX6 News that a man with a gun, shot two employees as well as a police officer. A second officer shot and killed the unidentified gunman.
Sgt. Williams says that the injuries to the officer and the employees are not life-threatening. The victims were taken to UAB Hospital. Police have not released their names.
One hospital worker says a “Code Silver” was called across the intercom. He says “Code Silver” means there is harm or threat with a weapon. He says employees are instructed to call 911.
I'm perfectly open to having a discussion on the pros and cons of each possible solution.
Many people (especially parents) have a problem with arming staff or teachers. It is not the perfect solution. However under given circumstances in America it seems like a worthwhile thought.
Locking down schools with increased barriers from entry is not a solution. This shooter was the son of a teacher at the school. He was even required to be buzzed in at the front door. Parents as well as other relatives of staff or students will always demand access to their child's school, so locking out all outsiders is impractical.
Arming a select number of staff at a school can be a logical solution using proper training. Parents trust teachers and administrators to be responsible around their children, it's not a stretch to trust them with your child's security. Even just arming several admistrators like a principal and select other few could be a benefit. Law enforcement are a reactionary force with a response time of 3-10 minutes depending on location and city. The fastest response would be to have someone prepared already inside the school. Remember that in this shooting, police arrived after the shooter had already shot himself and ended the event.
Right, because the people with a mental disposition appropriate for educating elementary students are often equally suited to a role as a close-quarters urban combat soldier.
If I were a parent, and teachers were ever allowed to carry firearms, I'd start home schooling.
Quote:
I'd like to point out the problems Israel had with terrorists attacking their schools. It is the same as a psychotic active shooter situation. To prevent them, Israel began arming their teachers and having parents as armed guards. In 2002, a terrorist attempted a shooting attack on an Israeli school, but was stopped by armed civilians at the school before he had any chance to do harm.
Israel is surrounded by armies hell bent on it being wiped off the face of the Earth. America is bordered my us, Canadians, who aren't exactly threatening, and Mexico, who also is not more than a minor threat and only along the border. You've made a false analogy: what works for Isreal does not necessarily work for America.
Quote:
To everyone that believes tighter gun control is the answer for America, think about how it would need to be implemented, how much it would cost, and how effective it could truly be. There is almost one gun in America for every American citizen. To take away all those guns would be on a scale no government, even America, could ever try to take on.
If America placed an equivalent effort to restricting access to firearms detrimental to its society as foreign policy, they could have a country almost free of firearm violence. That's a novel idea, America focusing on its own internal issues instead of the internal issues of a sovereign nation.
Quote:
Everyone needs to read about Chicago gun violence. The state of Illinois has the tightest gun control in all of America. Handguns are banned in Chicago. Yet shooting violence with handguns in Chicago is some of the highest in the country.
Yes, because guns are still easily brought into Illinous and cities therein from neighboring areas. The effectiveness of firearms restrictions in Illinous are fundamentally underminded by the laxness of them in neighboring states.
Quote:
This is all ignoring a major fact: the only people that obey the law are law abiding citizens. Law abiding sheep believe gun control will work for America because they all follow the law. Criminals and psychopaths do not obey the law. If they ban guns, they will use black market guns or turn to homemade bombs.
As a PAL/RPAL holder, I can list several locations where I could purchase a firearm with no difficulty. I could not tell you where I could buy an illegal gun; I don't even know where I would start looking, it's not like I could pick one up off Craigslist. I also do not know how to build an IED; I could theoretically find a set of plans on the internet, but it would be a much more arduous process than stopping by the local gun store. You've proved one point: a person intent on killing people can find a way; you've not acknowledged another key fact, it's a lot harder to kill people when you do not have easy (read: legal) access to a firearm.
Quote:
For anyone arguing that knife attacks are less deadly than shooting incidents with China as evidence, needs to look at the facts. For the majority of China knife attacks of recent year, they were conducted with meat cleavers. Cleavers are poor penetrators. The way to kill someone with a gun or a knife is to reach the heart or brain. a standard 6 inch chef's knife used as a stabbing weapon is just as deadly as a gun. Knives require no training to use, they never malfunction, they don't need to be reloaded, and they don't make noise.
I would prefer a person who aspires to murder me possess a knife, any knife, even an axe, or a sword, over any firearm, aside from maybe a muzzle loading design. The effectiveness of a weapon is intrinsically tied to its range, and therefore a firearm is infinitely superior to any weapon with a limited range except in very select circumstances. The argument you've made is a desperate, and futile, attempt at defending any entitlement to gun ownership above the bare minimum, which ultimately speaks to the poor case for it in an evolved society. Just to further prove my already thoroughly proven point, pick any public venue, shopping mall, school, movie theater, and tell me, would you rather face a person with a semi-automatic rifle or handgun, or knife?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nabs
RIP
Charlotte Bacon, 6.
Daniel Barden, 7.
Rachel Davino, 29.
Olivia Engel, 6.
Josephine Gay, 7.
Ana M. Marquez-Greene, 6.
Dylan Hockley, 6.
Dawn Hochsprung, 47.
Madeleine F. Hsu, 6.
Catherine V. Hubbard, 6.
Chase Kowalski, 7.
Nancy Lanza, 52.
Jesse Lewis, 6.
James Mattioli, 6.
Grace McDonnell, 7.
Anne Marie Murphy, 52.
Emilie Parker, 6.
Jack Pinto, 6.
Noah Pozner, 6.
Caroline Previdi, 6.
Jessica Rekos, 6.
Avielle Richman, 6.
Lauren Rousseau, 30.
Mary Sherlach, 56. Victoria Soto, 27. Benjamin Wheeler, 6.
Allison N. Wyatt, 6.
This made me tear up just reading though the list.
Victoria Soto ordered her first graders to climb into cabinets, and not make a sound.
When the gunman reached Victoria's classroom, she told him her students were in the gym.
The gunman shot Victoria, and proceeded on with his killing spree.
Victoria died an incredible hero, there are many children who owe their lives to her today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hondaracer
Sorry bad pic, but there are plenty of semi auto hunting rifles, moral of the story was guns are banned purely on looks not function Posted via RS Mobile
I'll say this -
I've never known it necessary to fire multiple shots when hunting. I've only ever had the opportunity to make a single shot, if I were to miss the animal would have escaped before there was the opportunity to made another good shot. I've never hunted ducks, grouse, or other bird species, they might be an exception. That being the case, it seems unnecessary for operations that allow more than one shot to be made in relatively quick succession to be legal. I know you, Hondaracer, have more firearms and hunting experience than myself. I've only been hunting a couple dozen times, and usually with a bow. Tell me if my opinion is totally ignorant to some key fact.
Last edited by MindBomber; 12-15-2012 at 08:20 PM.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
The banners on the left side and below do not show for registered users!
