[Gunnair]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

This conversation is about military assault rifles that are easily converted to automatic fire from semi-automatic.

Really? Please illuminate me.

What specific "military assault rifle" originates as a semi-automatic and then is 'easily converted' to full-automatic? Further, to prove your point that this is "easy" please clearly state the process for converting that particular rifle to full-automatic?

FNC1 - it took a match stick. One of the first things we learned in Basic

[Gunnair]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Assualt rifles as a hobby? Really?

Shall we add RPGs as well?

When you have ignorant politicians branding all sorts of firearms as 'assault weapons' then, yes, it's perfectly possible for someone to have a harmless hobby that includes what some f**kwit calls an 'assault weapon'.

Example: I own a .22 caliber Feather (RAV)...



It fires a .22 caliber rim fire round with each pull of the trigger and then reloads itself with the recoil action of the round.

In California the rifle pictured is perfectly legal with a 10 round clip. But if I add a pistol grip on the fore and a heat shroud around the barrel it magically becomes an assault rifle.

Yet the function of the illegal configuration is identical to the function of the legal configuration.

One is an assault rifle because it's scary looking and made some Democrat wet their panties and the other is legal because the Democrat probably doesn't know that configuration even exists.

Consequently, I really could care less what some moron defines as an assault weapon because, if they're a reporter or a politician, they're likely wrong.

Done?

The example of the .22 calibre 'assault' rifle is a nice bit of chaff to deflect the point that there are also what could be called legitimate assault rifles floating around out there as hobby toys. Be they M16 or AK 47s.

Anyway, I really don't end up caring much what you guys do south, up here it's diffferent. I'd suggest we both step back from another ultimately useless biscuit flinging exercise in telling each other what kind of gun control they should have in our own countries.

[BartSimpson]

Gunnair Gunnair:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

This conversation is about military assault rifles that are easily converted to automatic fire from semi-automatic.

Really? Please illuminate me.

What specific "military assault rifle" originates as a semi-automatic and then is 'easily converted' to full-automatic? Further, to prove your point that this is "easy" please clearly state the process for converting that particular rifle to full-automatic?

FNC1 - it took a match stick. One of the first things we learned in Basic

Yes, but that's with a military lower receiver. Civvies aren't going to own that anyway. Oh, and a tab from a soda can works a shade better than the matchstick.

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

bootlegga bootlegga:

This conversation is about military assault rifles that are easily converted to automatic fire from semi-automatic.

Really? Please illuminate me.

What specific "military assault rifle" originates as a semi-automatic and then is 'easily converted' to full-automatic? Further, to prove your point that this is "easy" please clearly state the process for converting that particular rifle to full-automatic?

Well, no military assault rifle originates as a semi-automatic (unless you consider various firing settings as semi-auto). Military assault rifles (those I've seen and used myself) have a variety of settings, semi auto and automatic, either firing a bursts (3 and 5 rounds are common) or full on rock and roll, although it's not encouraged because you empty your mag in about 4 seconds.

However, to import assault rifles into Canada, any automatic settings must be disabled. That's why the article talks about this particular model being easy to convert to fully automatic and why they are considered prohibited weapons, instead of just restricted weapons.

As for how to convert one from semi-auto to full auto, I honestly don't remember that. I used to be up on that sort of knowledge (back in my young, hawkish days), but I no longer stay up to date on how to do that kind of shit. Back in the day though, I did read all about that kind of stuff. I vaguely remember something about filing receiver clips or bolts or something like that. Then I grew up and realized that as cool looking as they are, civilians don't need assault rifles.

However, the article (which I'm sure you read from beginning to end ) details the exact reason why these weapons are no longer allowed in Canada. But just in case you didn't bother reading the entire article, here you go;

$1:

In March, the RCMP sent letters to owners of the Norinco Type 97A rifles, demanding they turn in the guns. This came after the RCMP decided the gun was prohibited after determining it could be easily converted to fully automatic fire.

If you don't believe it's a military assault rifle, this is what Wikipedia says about the 97A;

$1:

The QBZ-95 (Chinese: 轻武器,步枪,自动（简称95式）, 1995; pinyin: Qīngwuqi Bùqiāng--Zìdòng, 1995; literally "Light weapon, Rifle, Automatic, 1995") is an assault rifle manufactured by Arsenal 266, part of Norinco and Arsenal 296, under Jianshe Corp, China South for the People's Liberation Army, the armed forces of the People's Republic of China, Chinese People's Armed Police (para-military police), and Chinese law enforcement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QBZ-95

Yep, that sounds like something every civilian NEEDS!

[Gunnair]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Gunnair Gunnair:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Really? Please illuminate me.

What specific "military assault rifle" originates as a semi-automatic and then is 'easily converted' to full-automatic? Further, to prove your point that this is "easy" please clearly state the process for converting that particular rifle to full-automatic?

FNC1 - it took a match stick. One of the first things we learned in Basic

Yes, but that's with a military lower receiver. Civvies aren't going to own that anyway. Oh, and a tab from a soda can works a shade better than the matchstick.

We weren't allowed to have pop. Smokes though... that was different.

[BartSimpson]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Assualt rifles as a hobby? Really?

Shall we add RPGs as well?

Gunnair Gunnair:

The example of the .22 calibre 'assault' rifle is a nice bit of chaff to deflect the point that there are also what could be called legitimate assault rifles floating around out there as hobby toys. Be they M16 or AK 47s.

Anyway, I really don't end up caring much what you guys do south, up here it's diffferent. I'd suggest we both step back from another ultimately useless biscuit flinging exercise in telling each other what kind of gun control they should have in our own countries.

I responded to your first comment.

As to your assertion of what is a 'legitimate' assault rifle, does that meet the legal definition in Canada? Because the legal definition of 'assault rifle' in Canada includes every semi-auto that can chamber a center-fire round.

So is it your opinion that since the Canadian regs include rifles that are not 'legitimate' assault rifles that the law itself is not legitimate?

[BartSimpson]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Well, no military assault rifle originates as a semi-automatic

Thank you, that's all you needed to post right there.

[Gunnair]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Assualt rifles as a hobby? Really?

Shall we add RPGs as well?

Gunnair Gunnair:

The example of the .22 calibre 'assault' rifle is a nice bit of chaff to deflect the point that there are also what could be called legitimate assault rifles floating around out there as hobby toys. Be they M16 or AK 47s.

Anyway, I really don't end up caring much what you guys do south, up here it's diffferent. I'd suggest we both step back from another ultimately useless biscuit flinging exercise in telling each other what kind of gun control they should have in our own countries.

I responded to your first comment.

As to your assertion of what is a 'legitimate' assault rifle, does that meet the legal definition in Canada? Because the legal definition of 'assault rifle' in Canada includes every semi-auto that can chamber a center-fire round.

So is it your opinion that since the Canadian regs include rifles that are not 'legitimate' assault rifles that the law itself is not legitimate?

Got no grief with the laws.

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Gunnair Gunnair:

The example of the .22 calibre 'assault' rifle is a nice bit of chaff to deflect the point that there are also what could be called legitimate assault rifles floating around out there as hobby toys. Be they M16 or AK 47s.

Anyway, I really don't end up caring much what you guys do south, up here it's diffferent. I'd suggest we both step back from another ultimately useless biscuit flinging exercise in telling each other what kind of gun control they should have in our own countries.

I responded to your first comment.

As to your assertion of what is a 'legitimate' assault rifle, does that meet the legal definition in Canada? Because the legal definition of 'assault rifle' in Canada includes every semi-auto that can chamber a center-fire round.

So is it your opinion that since the Canadian regs include rifles that are not 'legitimate' assault rifles that the law itself is not legitimate?

Well, the government doesn't really list anything as an assault rifle (at least not the way it is in the US).

Up here, there are non-restricted weapons (hunting rifles and most shotguns), restricted weapons (allowed with special permits) and prohibited weapons (which aren't allowed at all), period. Here's a list courtesy of the RCMP;

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/rp-eng.htm

[DeBoom]

bootlegga bootlegga:

There's no need for a civilian to own an assault rifle anyways. Good riddance!

While I agree there is no need for civilian ownership of assault rifles I don't think that should mean that civilians should be prohibited from owning them. Make them difficult to acquire but not impossible to legally acquire. Let collectors and gun enthusiast buy and use them on the range but institute tight controls on storage, transport and use. Besides few criminals are going to fork out the dough for an assault rifle when they can buy a semi automatic for much much cheaper that in many cases would be much more effective.

Yogi Yogi:

All of you 'armchair experts' are laughable! You have absolutely no experience with any weapons, yet feel that not only are you qualified to speak about, but legislate against responsible ownership and use thereof.

I'm on your side but these sweeping generalizations doesn't do anything to help our side. Good point about how laws should target the misuse of a weapon rather than the weapon itself.

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

And secondly, the DVD player example just don't cut it. How many people do you know carry a DVD player under their jacket to assault people with? How many homes have been broken into where a DVD player was stolen and then used to commit another crime?

I agree that a DVD player is a bad example but the underlying point is valid. There are many everyday objects that can be used to kill or to commit a crime yet they aren't subject to the over restrictive controls firearms are. Knives kill as many people a year as guns and are used in many more assaults yet there is no "knife control". Lead pipes, baseball bats and other blunt objects can kill but there isn't a blunt instrument registry. A car can be used to run someone over or to aid in a crime but there isn't a call to ban cars. Even a DVD player could be used to commit a crime. One can commit copy right infringement or view child porn. Why is there no calls to ban or restrict these items? Because we recognize that it is the misuse that should be illegal not item itself. Does having access to any of those potentially deadly objects make you want to stab/beat/kill anyone? If the answer is no what makes guns so special?

The simple fact is that lack of a firearm isn't going to stop someone who is determined to kill, just as making automatic weapons and handguns illegal isn't going to stop someone who is determined to acquire them.

$1:

Or, to put it another way, there are currently around 88,000 firearms floating around the country that have been stolen from people's homes and museums. Just from 2000 to 2007 17,000 have gone missing or been stolen including MP5Ks, MG42s, MAC-10s, Thompson sub-machine guns, a Sten MK ll, several AK variants, and no fewer than 32 AR-15s Only 10% of all the prohibited class weapons that were lost or stolen have ever been recovered nationwide.

So because 1% of guns are stolen should mean that no one should own a gun? Of those how many are used in a crime? With only about 150 people killed a year by guns that amounts to an almost insignificant fraction of legally owned guns. And when was the last time someone used any of those guns listed in a major crime? I can't recall ever hearing of a shooting with an AR-15 or an AK anywhere in Canada. Besides do you really think that if civilians were banned from owning guns that it would stop criminals from getting them? What would help reduce the number of stolen guns is abolish or upgrade the security of the gun registry. Right now it is a perfect shopping list for the would be gun thief.

Would you mind sharing the source for those numbers?

bootlegga bootlegga:

For anyone who thinks they do, let's discuss gun massacres. In the Columbine massacre, more than a DOZEN students and teachers (and I'm not including the two assholes in the death count) lost their lives because a couple of assholes armed with easily obtained automatic weapons (Tec-9s) went into their school and started shooting up the place.

And they obtained the guns illegally. What would more laws have done? Would they have stop their plan where they realized they couldn't legally get the guns? Would more laws stop the black market of guns?

$1:

Are you aware that there was a copycat incident in Taber a week later? There, some asshole went into school and starting shooting up the place. How many people did he kill before it was over? ONE. That's still tragic, but far less so than Columbine was.

The difference? He had a hunting rifle, not an assault weapon, not something that could be converted to auto fire, and not something with a high capacity magazine.

That's the difference between having some gun control and no gun control. The bad shit still can happen (unfortunately), but the amount of casualties are minimized. Therefore, it is EXACTLY the object that needs to be outlawed.

Considering the shooter had a semi-auto rifle I'd say that the lack of causalities points more to a lack a skill or intent to cause mass casualties on the part of the shooter than the effectiveness of gun control.

The only thing automatic fire is good for is laying down suppressive fire, having fun on the range and wasting ammunition. Despite the fact that the C7 has automatic capabilities soldiers rarely ever use it because semi-automatic fire is much more effective and uses fewer rounds. As for high capacity mags the only difference that makes is that the shooter will carry carry 18 5 round mags instead of 3 30 round mags. Either that or more likely he will modify or make his own or simply by illegal mags. A reasonable proficient shooter can change mags quickly not to make one bit of difference in the death toll. Limiting mag capacity is nothing more than a feel good measure that has no real grounding in reality.

Gunnair Gunnair:

Assualt rifles as a hobby? Really?

Shall we add RPGs as well?

Why not? A semi-auto "assault" rifle is no different functionally from a semi-auto hunting rifle. In fact a .223 from a AR-15 is going to cause less damage and have less penetrating ability than a .30-06 from a hunting rifle. The only real difference is cosmetic. In Canada some weapons are prohibited or restricted because they have flash suppressors and bayonet lugs just like military weapons. When was the last time someone was killed with a bayonet in Canada? Or a flash suppressor aided in crime? The laws don't make sense.

As for owning military weapons as a hobby why should it be illegal? There isn't any reason I can think of for a collector to be prohibited from owning a WWII Thompson as long as it is stored securely. History buffs tend not to go on shooting rampages. And if they want to go shooting on a range with their guns I can't think of any reason why they shouldn't be as long as they are not harming anyone.

We both want to see guns outside of the hands of criminals I just down see how limiting what law abiding gun owners can do is going to help that goal.

That went a little long but there were a lot of points I felt needed adressing.

[bootlegga]

DeBoom DeBoom:

A car can be used to run someone over or to aid in a crime but there isn't a call to ban cars.

Yes, but to own a car, you need insurance, REGISTRATION, a driver's license...why is that okay but gun registration is evil? Or do you propose that none of that should be necessary either?

DeBoom DeBoom:

bootlegga bootlegga:

For anyone who thinks they do, let's discuss gun massacres. In the Columbine massacre, more than a DOZEN students and teachers (and I'm not including the two assholes in the death count) lost their lives because a couple of assholes armed with easily obtained automatic weapons (Tec-9s) went into their school and started shooting up the place.

And they obtained the guns illegally. What would more laws have done? Would they have stop their plan where they realized they couldn't legally get the guns? Would more laws stop the black market of guns?

In Canada, it would be incredibly difficult to obtain such weapons simply because they are already prohibited weapons and have been so for a long, long time. Perhaps in Canada, if they had mob ties, knew some Asian gang members or black marketeers it might have been barely possible, but because all of those sorts of weapons have been banned for a long time, it is still highly unlikely that they could have obtained them in the first place.

DeBoom DeBoom:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Are you aware that there was a copycat incident in Taber a week later? There, some asshole went into school and starting shooting up the place. How many people did he kill before it was over? ONE. That's still tragic, but far less so than Columbine was.

The difference? He had a hunting rifle, not an assault weapon, not something that could be converted to auto fire, and not something with a high capacity magazine.

That's the difference between having some gun control and no gun control. The bad shit still can happen (unfortunately), but the amount of casualties are minimized. Therefore, it is EXACTLY the object that needs to be outlawed.

Considering the shooter had a semi-auto rifle I'd say that the lack of causalities points more to a lack a skill or intent to cause mass casualties on the part of the shooter than the effectiveness of gun control.

Wrong. Given that he entered the school with hundreds of rounds for his rifle, the intent was there, just not the ability to carry it out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._R._Myer ... l_shooting

DeBoom DeBoom:

The only thing automatic fire is good for is laying down suppressive fire, having fun on the range and wasting ammunition. Despite the fact that the C7 has automatic capabilities soldiers rarely ever use it because semi-automatic fire is much more effective and uses fewer rounds. As for high capacity mags the only difference that makes is that the shooter will carry carry 18 5 round mags instead of 3 30 round mags. Either that or more likely he will modify or make his own or simply by illegal mags. A reasonable proficient shooter can change mags quickly not to make one bit of difference in the death toll. Limiting mag capacity is nothing more than a feel good measure that has no real grounding in reality.

And I'm sure that pyschotic teenaged kids who got their firearms training playing Doom (or some other FPS) have the same level of fire discipline as trained soldiers and police officers.

Talk about specious reasoning...

[BartSimpson]

DeBoom DeBoom:

As for owning military weapons as a hobby why should it be illegal? There isn't any reason I can think of for a collector to be prohibited from owning a WWII Thompson as long as it is stored securely. History buffs tend not to go on shooting rampages. And if they want to go shooting on a range with their guns I can't think of any reason why they shouldn't be as long as they are not harming anyone.

First, that was an outstanding post.

Second, I own a 1928 select-fire Thompson and it is in my collection simply for the nostalgia. It's not a lot of fun to use, really.

So what threat does it pose to anyone? Let's say it gets stolen, well, considering the firing pin is not in my gun safe in the Tommy it'll be a useful club but not very useful as a firearm.

And the most dangerous weapons I own? They're not my handguns. They're my bolt action rifles. In particular, my Remington 700 SPS chambered in .308 and my Barrett chambered in .50.

Give me 100 round with either and I can produce 100 corpses.

That's because I know what I'm doing. Yet the pee-their-pants-because-guns-are-scary crowd is more afraid of some clown who gets his hands on a Tec-9 and after shooting off 500-1000 rounds has 5 or 6 people dead to show for it.

From my point of view, it's the full auto weapons that are safer in most people's hands because it's less likely they'll hit anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

[DeBoom]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Yes, but to own a car, you need insurance, REGISTRATION, a driver's license...why is that okay but gun registration is evil? Or do you propose that none of that should be necessary either?

Not once have I ever called for deregulating firearms. For the record I support training, background checks and licensing. My objection to the firearms registration is that it is ineffective and a waste of resources. The billions spend on registration in this country could have been much better spent on more police officers and anti-smuggling efforts. That would have had a much better effect on gun crime.

Considering you only responded to this one sentence shall I take it you agree with the rest of the paragraph?

bootlegga bootlegga:

In Canada, it would be incredibly difficult to obtain such weapons simply because they are already prohibited weapons and have been so for a long, long time. Perhaps in Canada, if they had mob ties, knew some Asian gang members or black marketeers it might have been barely possible, but because all of those sorts of weapons have been banned for a long time, it is still highly unlikely that they could have obtained them in the first place.

Really? We have a long and open border with country that has the most guns in the world and you think it would be hard to acquire an illegal gun? The drug dealers don't seem to have a problem and their product can be smelt by dogs. That might also be a surprise to the gangs who seem to have no trouble getting illegal guns from the states. Most crime guns come from the US.

bootlegga bootlegga:

Wrong. Given that he entered the school with hundreds of rounds for his rifle, the intent was there, just not the ability to carry it out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._R._Myer ... l_shooting

He got taken down by a gym teacher after shooting at 3 people. Hardly a stunning display of skill. The real reason few people got hurt was he let the teacher get the drop on him. Him only having a semi-auto wouldn't have made one bit of difference if the teacher didn't get the drop on him. And Virgina Tech was done with semi-auto and had a much higher death toll than Columbine. It matters much more how the weapon is used than what the weapon is.

$1:

And I'm sure that pyschotic teenaged kids who got their firearms training playing Doom (or some other FPS) have the same level of fire discipline as trained soldiers and police officers.

Talk about specious reasoning...

A video game has never had a realistic depiction of automatic fire. But seriously its not that hard to reason this one out on your own. Its not out of the question for a potential shooter to practice with the gun before (the columbine shooters did so) or even read a book or website about guns. But more to the point if the shooter is spraying on auto that means he is wasting lots of ammo with out much result. Lets say the shooter brought 3 30 round mags. He could pick people off one by one on semi by either firing one round per target or double tapping or he could spray bullets hoping to hit something. With the bullets he brought he could kill 45 people by double taping or 18 if he manages to limit his fire to sort aimed bursts of 5 round on auto (something your average school shooter probably wont have the disciple to do). Furthermore do you think most psychotic shooters/criminals are going to lay down several several grand for an automatic assault rifle when they could buy a semi auto rifle or pistol for a few hundred buck? There just doesn't seem to be enough benefit to make autos illegal.

[fifeboy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

To put it another way, those 88,000 missing guns could "outfit" the equivalent of 6-8 modern, full-strength infantry divisions.

BULLSH*T.

88,000 random firearms that are mostly revolvers, bolt action rifles, and semi-automatics are absolutely NOT going to outfit ANY 'modern, full strength infantry division' and this sole comment of yours speaks to how little you know of the firearms you're demonizing and it speaks to the vast ignorance you have of what constitutes a modern infantry division.

Thanks for proving Yogi's point that you're posing as an authority on topics you know very little about.

Yet, according to our local military expert, some guy named BartSimpson

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

According to the official Nazi report of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, the might of the Third Reich was held at bay for near a month by a handful of sick, emaciated, and starving Jews who were armed with:

$1:

Seven Polish rifles, one Russian and one German rifle, 59 pistols of various calibers, several hundred incendiary bottles, home-made explosives, infernal machines with [[Fuse (explosives)|fuses]], a large amount of explosives and ammunition for weapons of all calibers, including some [[machine gun]] ammunition.

so, although they couldn't outfit an infantry division, perhaps they could hold them off in urban warfare.

[Public_Domain]