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.
Yes, it's a joke, and not even close to a possible solution, but with all the discussion on gun control, this clip came to mind. Personally, I'm leaning towards mental health screenings as part of the firearm licensing process, with re-checks every three years. However, I'm also not opposed to further restrictions of certain firearms, but as discussed so far, what to restrict is incredibly subjective.
Also, separate point and something I remember hearing about when I was talking with a friend of mine.
While you cannot *apply* for prohibited, a friend of mine once mentioned that he purchased a gun that he had a hunch would later be on the prohibited list. He said (and again, I'm relaying information here) "Once a gun you already own is on the prohibited list, you basically get grandfathered in to a prohibited license."
Also, separate point and something I remember hearing about when I was talking with a friend of mine.
While you cannot *apply* for prohibited, a friend of mine once mentioned that he purchased a gun that he had a hunch would later be on the prohibited list. He said (and again, I'm relaying information here) "Once a gun you already own is on the prohibited list, you basically get grandfathered in to a prohibited license."
So if what he's saying is true...
Wishful thinking. This has happened before. If you google Norinco T97 you'll see. It was a non-rest when sold. A bunch of people go them and shortly after the RCMP said it was Prohib. Knock knock, who's there? RCMP.
I only answer to my username, my real name is Irrelevant!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: CELICAland
Posts: 25,650
Thanked 10,381 Times in 3,907 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlo mein
Really Piers Morgan? The more I watch this guy the more I believe he is unwilling to have an honest debate where he allows others on his show to debate the other side without his intervention. All I see him do is interrupt his guests.
I searched for 30 seconds and found a shooting massacre that happened in the UK AFTER their harsh gun control was implemented:
I know I'm getting flak for my idea regarding responsible parenthood.
But as you can see, Obama is calling for a ban on AR's. This is absolutely futile. A person who can't get his hands on an AR will just find a shotgun/hunting rifle/pistol to substitute. In any case, all AR's are semi-auto's anyway. They're pretty much hunting rifles, not mil spec'd at all. You can buy bump fire stocks for "full auto" I suppose, but you can buy semi-auto shotguns and that's as deadly.
It's either ban guns outright, or find the root problem of why people are using them to do harm and address it.
Instead of failing people who have a stance that remotely constitutes banning or controlling guns, why don't you post an opinion on it? By failing others and not backing up your reasons why, it makes you look like a jackass.
If you feel so strongly, and can only respond by failing then what the hell is your problem with the gun control then? It may not be plausible, but steps do need to be taken to figure out why events like these happen be it mental problems with the shooters or the 300 million guns+ out there in America.
So you believe that teachers should have had a gun in their classrooms, thereby avoiding this tragedy? Your silence seems to back that up.
and what a fucking joke the media is, tonight on "Entertainment tonight" :roll eyes: the main host led with the shooting story, his opening line?
"Among the guns found was a Glock 17, a "high powered pistol used for hunting large game"
uhg..
Sigh. The sad thing is people will go around repeating this and spreading false info. For anyone who does not know. That's a common 9mm pistol, one of the smaller hand gun calibres. That thing is not dropping any big game unless the bear eats the bullet and it gets lodged in it's airway and chokes to death.
You are posting misinformation. American citizens do not have access to supplies of parts designed to modify semi auto firearms to fully automatic. They are restricted to law enforcement/military only.
That's still not a full auto. One press = mag dump = FA.
That thing you're describing is closer to a bumpfire/slide fire stock. It still requires you to depress the trigger to fire 1 round. You can loop your thumb around the belt holes in ur jeans and achieve the same thing.
That's still not a full auto. One press = mag dump = FA.
That thing you're describing is closer to a bumpfire/slide fire stock. It still requires you to depress the trigger to fire 1 round. You can loop your thumb around the belt holes in ur jeans and achieve the same thing.
You can mod a AK-47 for ful auto in minutes. I used a full auto M-16 when I was in Vegas.
__________________ Until the lions have their own historians, the history of the hunt will always glorify the hunter.
Instead of failing people who have a stance that remotely constitutes banning or controlling guns, why don't you post an opinion on it? By failing others and not backing up your reasons why, it makes you look like a jackass.
If you feel so strongly, and can only respond by failing then what the hell is your problem with the gun control then? It may not be plausible, but steps do need to be taken to figure out why events like these happen be it mental problems with the shooters or the 300 million guns+ out there in America.
So you believe that teachers should have had a gun in their classrooms, thereby avoiding this tragedy? Your silence seems to back that up.
Here are some facts for those that are too lazy to research and only believe in what the media tells you:
In Canada:
- there are no automatic rifles or "assault rifles" available to be purchased
- you can't buy conversion kits legally to modify semi-autos to full-autos
- a person needs to be licensed (long process that takes 1.5~6 months, done by the RCMP) before buying even a hunting rifle
- there's a restriction on pistol magazines to hold only 10 rounds
- there's a restriction on semi-auto(one shot per trigger pull) magazines to hold only 5 rounds
- an AR-15 is "restricted", meaning you can only use it at the range, but many people have it as it is a popular target/competition shooting rifle
- there's a long list of rifles that are prohibited (can't buy them) STRICTLY because of the way they LOOK, for example, the AK47. (this makes little sense - why would one rifle be "more deadly" than the other, when both shoot the same ammo and function identically?)
- you cannot buy ammo without a license
- doing any of the following will result in the gun owner being charged under the CRIMINAL CODE: forgetting to renew your license when it expires, not storing your guns properly at home, not having the right paperwork when you transport your restricted pistols/rifles, and many more. Gun owners are punished and treated as potential criminals simply by owning these mechanical devices.
Canada has a pretty tight gun control system in place already, so people need to chill out and stop reacting as if gun owners are a bunch of lunatics , just waiting for the right time to snap and kill people. Last I checked, there are 2 million license holders in Canada, and over 10 million guns all over the country. We don't have anywhere near the amount of shootings as they do in the states.
This is a social issue, not an object/tool issue. However, I do support some form of restriction on who can, and what can be bought/used (full auto is fun, but I'm ok with not having it available to civilians). Our current system is ok and there's no need to make it anymore convoluted or "tougher". Some tweaks here and there are needed, though (I acutally want to see that it is mandatory for a private seller to confirm the buyer's license info is legitimate before selling the non-restricted rifles. Right now it is optional/within reasonable grounds to believe that the info is true. I think this needs to be mandatory.)
It gets a lot more complicated in the states because of their legal system (federal vs state laws, etc), culture, and social issues. Banning one MODEL of a firearm because of its common use in tragic incidents is purely a political and emotional move, NOT something that will make a difference in saving lives and preventing potential crimes.
At the end of the day, a gun is a gun, banning/restricting them based on media exposure or cosmetic reasons is simply asinine. An "evil looking" AR-15 is no more lethal than your grandpa's 1950 Russian SKS rifle - both are semi-auto, both hold 5 rounds, both shoot standard issue ammo, and both could be used by good OR bad people.
__________________
Nikonian
Last edited by Bonjour43MA; 12-17-2012 at 11:10 PM.
- there's a long list of rifles that are prohibited (can't buy them) STRICTLY because of the way they LOOK, for example, the AK47. (this makes little sense - why would one rifle be "more deadly" than the other, when both shoot the same ammo and functions identically?)
So you're saying that an AK47 is identical to every other rifle, except the way it looks?
Come on
It is more deadly, that's why it has been used so widely by so many countries over the years.
So you're saying that an AK47 is identical to every other rifle, except the way it looks?
Come on
It is more deadly, that's why it has been used so widely by so many countries over the years.
The AK47 shoots an 7.62×39mm, which is, for all intents and purposes, the same as the .30-30... which is a deer hunting round that licenced hunters throughout the world use. The only main difference between an AK47 and a basic hunting rifle is the full auto option.
The reason why it's so commonly used by countries over the world is because it's highly reliable and dirt cheap to produce, not because of it's deadliness. Hell, a single bullet through a body before it starts tumbling causes "relatively" minor injuries.
So you're saying that an AK47 is identical to every other rifle, except the way it looks?
Come on
It is more deadly, that's why it has been used so widely by so many countries over the years.
Case in point. Thanks for quoting me and stating what you just said. A perfect example of what I was talking about where people believe that a certain type of gun is "deadlier" than the other.
The AK is popular because it is a simple design that is easy to clean and use, is cheap to make, and low maintenance. Yes, it IS identical to other rifles that shoot the same ammo (7.62x39mm) and perform the same function, but with obvious mechanical differences which resulted in the way it looks.
Like the Civic from years past, there's a shit load of them because of price points and what you get in return - it doesn't run faster than a Corolla; it doesn't take more passenger than a Sentra, and it doesn't do anything that any other 4 dr sedan can't do. You can think of the AK as the Civic in the firearms community.
Tell me, with facts, how the AK is "more deadly" than other rifles that shoot the same 7.62x39mm rounds? I got my pen and paper ready.
Higher cycling rate? Nope
Shoots bigger rounds? Nope
More accurate? Nope
Looks scarier because it's what the bad guys use in movies and video games? Ding Ding!
So you're saying that an AK47 is identical to every other rifle, except the way it looks?
Come on
It is more deadly, that's why it has been used so widely by so many countries over the years.
AK47's are used by so many countries for military operations / insurgency because it's design is very efficient; cheap to produce, ease of use (cleaning and firing), and durability; it's not more deadly, it's just an easily manufactured gun that doesn't break often.
So you're saying that an AK47 is identical to every other rifle, except the way it looks?
Come on
It is more deadly, that's why it has been used so widely by so many countries over the years.
It shoots the same round as a $150 dollar SKS. It's well represented in conflicts because of how many were made, their reliability and simplicity and full auto (sum). You want to arm your forces with a weapon that is realiable, plenty of ammo sources and a large cache of parts.
If you buy an AK from one of the MANY manufactures in the US for $600, it's not deadlier than the $150 dollar dirty russian SKS I can buy tomm.
I also want to point out that the only reason I'm talking about guns in this thread is because of the amount of misinformation, misconception, and emotional response not based on facts that are being spewed out all over the place on these mechanical devices.
What we should be talking about instead, is what can be done to prevent the next crazy PERSON from getting to the point where they simply have no other way to resolve their issues other than killing others?
Look at all the mods you can do to a Ruger 10/22. It's a .22LR, and there's an insane amount of mods you can do to it, legally. You can make it look like as intimidating as any gun out there. Hell, Colt makes .22LR's with a m4 carbine body.
At the end of the day, a gun is a gun, banning/restricting them based on media exposure or cosmetic reasons is simply asinine. An "evil looking" AR-15 is no more lethal than your grandpa's 1950 Russian SKS rifle - both are semi-auto, both hold 5 rounds, both shoot standard issue ammo, and both could be used by good OR bad people.
I'd like to focus on this passage, but first I'll address that larger body of your text. I've not noted any especially anti-firearms posts within this thread, or ever within the greater context of revscene, only posts of by people with various degrees of experience with the subject and a lot of pointed criticisms of the American culture surrounding it. Even a proponent of CCW permits, would have to agree, a greater proportion of gun owners in America and not responsible compared with Canada. Moving along..
The SKS compared to the AK-47 - just my experience/knowledge which is not flawless by any means.
-the SKS was designed to be a rifle with semi-auto capability.
-the AK-47 was designed to be a machine gun with full or semi-auto capability.
-the SKS is designed to hold a fixed 10 round magazine.
-the AK-47 is designed to hold a removable 30-75 round magazine.
- the SKS is designed to be accurate and has tight tolerances.
- the AK-47 is designed to be reliable and has very wide tolerances.
- the SKS uses a two-piece piston.
- the AK-47 uses a one-piece piston.
- the SKS and AK-47 both use 7.62 x 39mm ammo.
Yes, yes, yes, as used by a legal gun owner, none of this really matters too much. Unfortunately, a person who has avoided the type of contact with police that would have them prohibited from legally purchasing a gun can still purchase on with illegal intentions (like we see in America, time and time again). While the SKS is fundamentally a rifle, the AK-47 is fundamentally an assault weapon, and that's why it's the gun universally chosen by poor/cheap armies the world over. The SKS can be converted to full-auto and made to accept higher capacity magazines, but it won't stand up to that type of use well. The AK-47 was born and bred for full auto uses, so although they're not set up in that configuration for sale in America, if someone were to convert one, they would have a weapon that thrives under spray-and-pray conditions. So, when you get down to brass tax - there really is a big difference between the two guns in the wrong hands, not just aesthetic differences.
Edit:
Bonjour, I see you've written above, the SKS and AK-47 are equally accurate? I've never shot an AK, nor do I have any desire to, so I have no point of hands on comparison, but I've always understood the AK-47 to be fundamentally less accurate than the SKS?
Last edited by MindBomber; 12-17-2012 at 11:39 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!
