Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Guns & Ammo Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 08-05-2012, 04:26 AM
fish gunner fish gunner is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: on a mishn for fishn.
Posts: 8,790
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trakker282 View Post
And here he goes again....now I know why his names SCRAPPER...
REPEAT: I DID NOT MEAN IT AS AN INSULT

Of all the countries with firearms in major use Israel and Switzerland (and one or two others, but not sure which at the moment) have the right idea. Each family, with exceptions, should have at least one person or more in the household that knows how and has firearms to use. Only setback for those that don't like the military style rifles is that both Israel and Switzerland require that person have at least a few years in the military.
just so we are clear, the two mentioned above have conscription, mandatory military service. if that was the case we would find most of the ( I waaant one crowd ) with out guns in this part of the world.
next point " assault rifle" is not made up by the media. it is a classification for a selective fire, short barreled,sustained suppresive fire rifle. not because they look scary. because they are scary, you (the i waaant one crowd )get a b.a.r. I get a hk 93 with the 100 rd drum . who has the upper hand. I can make the hk full auto in abt five min. good luck with the b.a.r. then you will see the differance.
for the record with conscription, I would gladly let all that have served have access to service rifles. 90% would not own guns. the rest you could bet your life on. it is the only reasonable solution to this issue.
I love guns but they keep ending up in the wrong hands. that is the real issue here. guns dont kill , bad people do. they kill more with 30 round mags.
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 08-05-2012, 04:32 AM
fish gunner fish gunner is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: on a mishn for fishn.
Posts: 8,790
Cool

stupid ting

Last edited by fish gunner; 08-05-2012 at 04:44 AM. Reason: double post
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 08-05-2012, 08:22 AM
Mekanik Mekanik is offline
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Fort McMurray
Posts: 2,139
Default

Scrapper and trekker, you both misread each other's posts.

Scrapper is not calling for a total gun ban, his original statements had to do with moving any sort of "black gun" to the prohibited list.

Trekker was trying to ask if you supported a full ban with the argument that all people who try and control guns are evil incarnate.

Neither arguments hold water in my world. When you resort to the rhetoric that all pro-control, pro-abolishment people are moving towards a state like those regimes mentioned, you fail to grasp that there are other nations who've tried this with guns and have not ended up causing genocide, mass wars, etc. china, while they do have shady business practices, terribly quality control, and poor human rights records, has not yet even come close to the atrocities that hitler and Stalin committed. It's time we moved away from this overused argument as it's ineffective and just insulting.

When the anti-control group come out and say every weapon must be available for purchase, it's kinda of funny how when someone challenges them about it, they go "of course we won't let the crazies get them" which brings us right back to the idea of control. If you're for every weapon being available and then saying that there are screens that need to be set up and training, these are gun controls. If the person does this and that and then applies here, he can buy whatever he wants. The "this" "that" and " the other thing" all are a type of control; most of us are in favor of control at some level, maybe not just those that Canada currently has.

Scrapper, I still believe that those "assault weapons" that are on the restricted and the ones that are on the non-restricted list do serve useful purposes in training, competition and pleasure in the hands of responsible individuals. To take them away from thousands because one or two individuals became violent does not serve any legitimate purpose other then giving people the feeling, the illusion of safety. I wish I had the stats for how many owned these types of guns and then apply them to the three cases this year where someone got their hands on one and went nuts ( hey! Finally a use for all that data we just destroyed! Too bad nobody decided to use it that way) We're talking way less then five percent. I wish we could get traffic accidents and legal infractions in the motor vehicle world down to that level.

We do live in a democracy, we base what we do on probability outcomes. Most people can behave with these firearms, truly the vast majority. Punish those who cannot, the same we would for the people that take a shotgun into a convenience store, the people who use illegal hand guns and shot up picnics, and those who cannot operate any device we've determined legal in a safe manner in accordance to the law.

Trekker, thank you for your input and that you're concerned about the state and our firearms. I understand the intent of your argument however when you mention those states and then throw out those names, they do tend to raise hackles and turn it into a fight rather then a debate, as you've seen here. Most rational people do not enjoy being compared to anyone in that list and it makes them defensive and at times hostile to your argument, regardless of the point you're making. I find it's a cliche now and doesn't require much in serious thinking. They have their "think of the children and the broken homes" on the other side of the firearms debate, we have "gun control/abolishment" is for dictators." Neither really sway anybody, nor does it make any logical sense. Australia has massive amounts of firearms controls, I see they didn't make your list.

Even the countries you mentioned have a form of control: the Israelis require mandatory military service which provides firearms training and instruction and the swiss have background checks over and above canada's. This is a form of gun control. I suspect, if you also dig deeper, you will find that the firearms are also purchased under some sort of control and both outlaw fully-automatic weapons.

For example Israel: they have to provide a reason they want to own a firearm, self defence, sporting, etc. the minimum age of ownership is 27 unless you served in the military in which case it's lowered to 21.

Www.Gunpolicy.org has the info for Switzerland as well if you're interested.

Enjoy your day, gentlemen. My breakfast is done and off to the range I go.
__________________
If you're reading this, why aren't you in the woods?

Stupidity is taxable and sometimes I get to be the collector.
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 08-05-2012, 04:35 PM
Tactical Lever Tactical Lever is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Fox Creek
Posts: 3,315
Default

So how many would you allow your wife Scrapper? Given the above scenario.

Shouldn't the law abiding general populace have the same abilities to defend our person as well as home and families as police and military do. Or should we limit the amount that police can carry as well?

I feel that an fa sub would make a very effective defense tool. Especially for an elderly person with arthritis, who may have problems handling a big bore rifle, or shotgun.

Funny how when we restrict or prohibit, it affects the people least able to defend themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 08-05-2012, 05:09 PM
gitrdun gitrdun is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: High River, AB
Posts: 10,788
Default

Mekanik's post is a good read, and I couldn't agree more. Your's too Tactical Lever. I've quit arguing with those that are pro-ban or restrictions. Too many better things to do with my time, like go and shoot my guns for instance.
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 08-05-2012, 06:28 PM
scrapper scrapper is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 508
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mekanik View Post
Scrapper and trekker, you both misread each other's posts.

Scrapper is not calling for a total gun ban, his original statements had to do with moving any sort of "black gun" to the prohibited list.

Trekker was trying to ask if you supported a full ban with the argument that all people who try and control guns are evil incarnate.

Neither arguments hold water in my world. When you resort to the rhetoric that all pro-control, pro-abolishment people are moving towards a state like those regimes mentioned, you fail to grasp that there are other nations who've tried this with guns and have not ended up causing genocide, mass wars, etc. china, while they do have shady business practices, terribly quality control, and poor human rights records, has not yet even come close to the atrocities that hitler and Stalin committed. It's time we moved away from this overused argument as it's ineffective and just insulting.

When the anti-control group come out and say every weapon must be available for purchase, it's kinda of funny how when someone challenges them about it, they go "of course we won't let the crazies get them" which brings us right back to the idea of control. If you're for every weapon being available and then saying that there are screens that need to be set up and training, these are gun controls. If the person does this and that and then applies here, he can buy whatever he wants. The "this" "that" and " the other thing" all are a type of control; most of us are in favor of control at some level, maybe not just those that Canada currently has.

Scrapper, I still believe that those "assault weapons" that are on the restricted and the ones that are on the non-restricted list do serve useful purposes in training, competition and pleasure in the hands of responsible individuals. To take them away from thousands because one or two individuals became violent does not serve any legitimate purpose other then giving people the feeling, the illusion of safety. I wish I had the stats for how many owned these types of guns and then apply them to the three cases this year where someone got their hands on one and went nuts ( hey! Finally a use for all that data we just destroyed! Too bad nobody decided to use it that way) We're talking way less then five percent. I wish we could get traffic accidents and legal infractions in the motor vehicle world down to that level.

We do live in a democracy, we base what we do on probability outcomes. Most people can behave with these firearms, truly the vast majority. Punish those who cannot, the same we would for the people that take a shotgun into a convenience store, the people who use illegal hand guns and shot up picnics, and those who cannot operate any device we've determined legal in a safe manner in accordance to the law.

Trekker, thank you for your input and that you're concerned about the state and our firearms. I understand the intent of your argument however when you mention those states and then throw out those names, they do tend to raise hackles and turn it into a fight rather then a debate, as you've seen here. Most rational people do not enjoy being compared to anyone in that list and it makes them defensive and at times hostile to your argument, regardless of the point you're making. I find it's a cliche now and doesn't require much in serious thinking. They have their "think of the children and the broken homes" on the other side of the firearms debate, we have "gun control/abolishment" is for dictators." Neither really sway anybody, nor does it make any logical sense. Australia has massive amounts of firearms controls, I see they didn't make your list.

Even the countries you mentioned have a form of control: the Israelis require mandatory military service which provides firearms training and instruction and the swiss have background checks over and above canada's. This is a form of gun control. I suspect, if you also dig deeper, you will find that the firearms are also purchased under some sort of control and both outlaw fully-automatic weapons.

For example Israel: they have to provide a reason they want to own a firearm, self defence, sporting, etc. the minimum age of ownership is 27 unless you served in the military in which case it's lowered to 21.

Www.Gunpolicy.org has the info for Switzerland as well if you're interested.

Enjoy your day, gentlemen. My breakfast is done and off to the range I go.
This is a good post, while I agree with 99% of it, I can assure you trakker new exactly what he was doing when he mentioned Hitler, he could have said Russia and Germany but no he purposely used the words Hitler and Stalin, those are powerfull words with huge conotations and were completely insulting. Trakker is still dancing around this issue, trying his best to justify his statements. He is fooling no one, i can't believe anyone who can type does not fully understand what will happen when you start using the name Hitler in any post. He used it for one reason and one reason only, he wanted to insult myself, and by doing so all veterans. Including the Chinese in the remark clearly shows some level of hatred toward that race as well.

In any event this is my last comment on the subject, trakker has been exposed, he refuses to apologize for his disgusting remark, confirming he feels using Hitler and Stalin in the context he used them for him is an acceptable behavior. There are hundeds of examples on this forum where when a person feels his remark was misunderstood that a blanket apology to all that were insulted is offered, not this guy he will not apologize because he intended his remark to be an insult.

Let's all get back to what was a very good discussion before it was so rudely interupted.
__________________
Gravity is a myth....the earth sucks!!
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 08-05-2012, 07:46 PM
Mekanik Mekanik is offline
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Fort McMurray
Posts: 2,139
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gitrdun View Post
Mekanik's post is a good read, and I couldn't agree more. Your's too Tactical Lever. I've quit arguing with those that are pro-ban or restrictions. Too many better things to do with my time, like go and shoot my guns for instance.
Nothing wrong with healthy discussion with anyone, regardless of their bent as long as it's reasonable. I believe that by reasoning with people, the truth tends to come out and there's middle ground found. We all love our firearms here. Some just love different kinds. Some people who are "antis" by nature, education, or experience have never really thought their position through and should you actually challenge them in an intelligent, respectful manner, I believe progress can be made. If not, we've still resisted.

To me, the shame is that if you take the last few months, the ones that've seriously hit the news, the two in Toronto and one in Colorado, you need to remember that the firearms in Toronto were hand guns and the ones in Aurora were semi automatic rifle, a shotgun, and a hand gun. None of these firearms are prohibitted in Canada, there are hundreds, if not thousands of the specific type used in all three shootings and let's be honest, really, how many incidences in Canada versus how many law abiders?

I ask again (not of you gitrdun), banning these particular firearms, how are they going to stop these crimes from occuring? Will it make you feel better? Feel safer? What are your criteria for choosing these specific firearms? Appearance? Their similarities in firing design or heritage in action or chambering? Will you sit with a catalogue of pictures and point and go, "nope" "not this one" and "that one's okay" Because when you look at the prohibitted list, in some cases, those examples have already happened.

What happens when someone smuggles one up from mexico or in a container into the country and they end up in the hands of someone who has every intention of using them? I'm not arguing self-defence law or the use of firearms as a means of protecting us from the bogeyman having his own firearm, I'm saying that those who will use these firearms to harm "us" have no intention of behaving legally. They will use whatever means necessary to inflict harm, regardless of what we do to the definition and listing of firearms.

At the end of that time, once again, I state, you have not made anyone safer in reality, just appearence and in a touchy feely sort of way. You've restricted the liberty and rights of your fellow enthusiasts for a noble purpose but at the end of the day, for no result and failed to address the problem. The problem is with people who have no regard for your safety, mine, or any one else and they will do you harm in whatever method they have at hand.

Until we have ways of appropriately dealing with the people who commit these crimes, no amount of firearm control will ever be effective beyond making you feel safer.
__________________
If you're reading this, why aren't you in the woods?

Stupidity is taxable and sometimes I get to be the collector.
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 08-05-2012, 08:32 PM
duceman duceman is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: south of calgary
Posts: 1,830
Default

yup, thats it in a nutshell, lee
__________________
220swifty

1. People who list their arguments in bullets points or numerical order generally come off as condescending pecker heads.

2. #1 is true.
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 08-05-2012, 08:34 PM
Hagalaz's Avatar
Hagalaz Hagalaz is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 2,430
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrapper View Post
This is a good post, while I agree with 99% of it, I can assure you trakker new exactly what he was doing when he mentioned Hitler, he could have said Russia and Germany but no he purposely used the words Hitler and Stalin, those are powerfull words with huge conotations and were completely insulting. Trakker is still dancing around this issue, trying his best to justify his statements. He is fooling no one, i can't believe anyone who can type does not fully understand what will happen when you start using the name Hitler in any post. He used it for one reason and one reason only, he wanted to insult myself, and by doing so all veterans. Including the Chinese in the remark clearly shows some level of hatred toward that race as well.

In any event this is my last comment on the subject, trakker has been exposed, he refuses to apologize for his disgusting remark, confirming he feels using Hitler and Stalin in the context he used them for him is an acceptable behavior. There are hundeds of examples on this forum where when a person feels his remark was misunderstood that a blanket apology to all that were insulted is offered, not this guy he will not apologize because he intended his remark to be an insult.

Let's all get back to what was a very good discussion before it was so rudely interupted.
Wow.

Just love to see yourself as the victim, don't you.

You have taken what he said out of context and twisted it to make it into something that it was not.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 08-06-2012, 08:28 AM
Tactical Lever Tactical Lever is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Fox Creek
Posts: 3,315
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by duceman View Post
well said tactical. the sad part is, it's not all that much of a dream these days, lee
Quote:
Originally Posted by gitrdun View Post
Mekanik's post is a good read, and I couldn't agree more. Your's too Tactical Lever. I've quit arguing with those that are pro-ban or restrictions. Too many better things to do with my time, like go and shoot my guns for instance.
Well thanks guys. I try to show an angle that affects someone personally. But it seems no one likes to answer that question.

Or maybe I'm on his ignore list?
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 08-06-2012, 08:29 AM
Camp Cook Camp Cook is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: BC
Posts: 217
Default

WOW being closed minded is strong in some here...

The below pic is my favorite deer hunting rifle right now it is my non-restricted yep you read that right it is my NON-RESTRICTED 18.6" barreled semi-auto Robinson Arms XCR-L chambered in 6.8SPC.

For those of you that have not heard about this round it is a rimless 30-30 (30 Rem) case slightly shortened and necked down to 270 cal I load 95gr Barnes TTSX @ 2825fps.

I legally use and hunt here in BC with 10 round 7.62X39 Robinson Arms pistol mags that hold 11 6.8SPC cartridges.

Recoil is almost non-existant accuracy is consistantly 3" - 4" @ 350 yards.

Do I need mags that hold more than 4 round definitly not all game animals I have taken have dropped to the first shot but it is fun to have them if and when I ever need them.

My wife does not hunt but likes to head into the bush with me and our young son this rifle is my wife's favorite camp gun I remove the VX111 4.5-14X LR Varmint reticle scope and install a 1X Leupold Prismatic scope for her when she is in camp she is fast and accurate with this rifle and th erecoil does not worry her because there is no recoil.

Loaded with eleven 110gr TSX @ 2650fps she is confident that she can take on most issues she would ever have to deal with in camp.

My dad is now 78 years old 1 1/2 years ago he had a sking accident left him with a 3rd degree shoulder seperation in his right shoulder effectively stopping him from ever shooting a hunting capable rifle again.

That is until I was able to talk him into shooting this combo he was so worried about the recoil that his first shot @ 150 yards was 3' - 4' off target but after that first shot he turned to me with amazement on his face and stated there was no recoil and your telling me this is a 300 yard deer hunting combo.

He settled back into the bags and proceeded to shoot the remaining 9 rounds into the kill zone of a deer size target @ 150 yards as fast as he could aim squeeze off a shot.

The rifle now also has the new folding adjustable for length FAST stock.

and one last thing this rifle or its mags or cartridges has ever jumped up and done anything that anyone could or should fear other than those that fear what they themselves would do with it...


Last edited by Camp Cook; 08-06-2012 at 08:37 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 08-06-2012, 08:37 AM
Dick284's Avatar
Dick284 Dick284 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Dreadful Valley
Posts: 14,586
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp Cook View Post
WOW being closed minded is strong in some here...

The below pic is my favorite deer hunting rifle right now it is my non-restricted yep you read that right it is my NON-RESTRICTED 18.6" barreled semi-auto Robinson Arms XCR-L chambered in 6.8SPC.

For those of you that have not heard about this round it is a rimless 30-30 (30 Rem) case slightly shortened and necked down to 270 cal I load 95gr Barnes TTSX @ 2825fps.

I legally use and hunt here in BC with 10 round 7.62X39 Robinson Arms pistol mags that hold 11 6.8SPC cartridges.

Recoil is almost non-existant accuracy is consistantly 3" - 4" @ 350 yards.

Do I need mags that hold more than 4 round definitly not all game animals I have taken have dropped to the first shot but it is fun to have them if and when I ever need them.

My wife does not hunt but likes to head into the bush with me and our young son this rifle is my wife's favorite camp gun I remove the VX111 4.5-14X LR Varmint reticle scope and install a 1X Leupold Prismatic scope for her when she is in camp she is fast and accurate with this rifle and th erecoil does not worry her because there is no recoil.

Loaded with eleven 110gr TSX @ 2650fps she is confident that she can take on most issues she would ever have to deal with in camp.

My dad is now 78 years old 1 1/2 years ago he had a sking accident left him with a 3rd degree shoulder seperation in his right shoulder effectively stopping him from ever shooting a hunting capable rifle again.

That is until I was able to talk him into shooting this combo he was so worried about the recoil that his first shot @ 150 yards was 3' - 4' off target but after that first shot he turned to me with amazement on his face and stated there was no recoil and your telling me this is a 300 yard deer hunting combo.

He settled back into the bags and proceeded to shoot the remaining 9 rounds into the kill zone of a deer @ 150 yards as fast as he could aim squeeze off a shot.

The rifle now also has the new folding adjustable for length FAST stock.

and one last thing this rifle or its mags or cartridges has ever jumped up and done anything that anyone could or should fear other than those that fear what they themselves would do with it...


Cool rig.....might have to think about one of these one day soon.

Only difference is in AB. we'd be stuck at 5 rounds for hunting.


Please PM me with where you bought that rig.
__________________


There are no absolutes
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 08-06-2012, 08:39 AM
Tactical Lever Tactical Lever is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Fox Creek
Posts: 3,315
Default

But..but THAT'S not a REAL hunting rifle!! Where's all the walnut and bluing?!
And if you run into a group of predators (2 or 4 legged), you'll have to dump out half yer ammo just to stack the odds on their side again!
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 08-06-2012, 08:52 AM
Camp Cook Camp Cook is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: BC
Posts: 217
Default

Will do...

The Robinson Arms XCR-L's come with 5 round mags so no problem for hunting but there shouldn't be a limit on the 10 round pistol mags for plinking/range work.

There is also now the recently released non-restricted XCR-M shoots 308 Win and should also be available soon in 260 Rem the mags for that rifle only hold 5 rounds as well.

I also have a complete upper in 223 for my XCR-L and I legally use/hunt with LAR 15 10 round 223 pistol mags works great on coyotes.

40gr V-Max @ 3200fps...


Last edited by Camp Cook; 08-06-2012 at 08:59 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 08-06-2012, 09:13 AM
Big Daddy Badger Big Daddy Badger is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 12,558
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tactical Lever View Post
So how many would you allow your wife Scrapper? Given the above scenario.

Shouldn't the law abiding general populace have the same abilities to defend our person as well as home and families as police and military do. Or should we limit the amount that police can carry as well?
They already do.

Most military and a good number of police do not own and are not licensed to own firearms.
And while the military folks might be trained to use machine guns and anti-tank weapons... surprise surprise... they don't take them home with them at night.

Which of course raises the issue of training and discipline.
Shouldn't ordinary citisens be expected to be disciplined and trained to the same level as law enforcement and military?

I get your point.
I don't have any issue with law abiding licensed ownership of 30 round mags or grandpas old Tommy gun but your comparison is a bit off.
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 08-06-2012, 09:25 AM
Camp Cook Camp Cook is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: BC
Posts: 217
Default

I'm thinking that some of you would be totally surprised at how many law abiding Canadian firearms owners are far more proficient with firearms than most LEO's/Military.
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 08-06-2012, 10:04 AM
KegRiver's Avatar
KegRiver KegRiver is offline
Gone Hunting
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: North of Peace River
Posts: 11,346
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp Cook View Post
I'm thinking that some of you would be totally surprised at how many law abiding Canadian firearms owners are far more proficient with firearms than most LEO's/Military.
Some would be surprised I'm sure, others would be surprised at how many have really really poor shooting and gun handling skills.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 08-06-2012, 10:28 AM
gitrdun gitrdun is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: High River, AB
Posts: 10,788
Default

^^^^ which brings this up: rifle rodeo on the 18th, bench shoot on the 25th.
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 08-06-2012, 10:54 AM
Camp Cook Camp Cook is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: BC
Posts: 217
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KegRiver View Post
Some would be surprised I'm sure, others would be surprised at how many have really really poor shooting and gun handling skills.
You definitely have a point...

Fortunately I know far more that are proficient than not.
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 08-06-2012, 11:16 AM
KegRiver's Avatar
KegRiver KegRiver is offline
Gone Hunting
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: North of Peace River
Posts: 11,346
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp Cook View Post
You definitely have a point...

Fortunately I know far more that are proficient than not.
You must run with a different crowd then I do. LOL

I do know a few good and a few exceptionally good rifleman, but the average hunter/shooter that I know, has far less skill then they think they do.

They can hit a paper target and they have taken game, but on a typical day they miss more then they hit. And most have never CLEANED a gun in their lives.

Sure they tell great story's about their bang flop successes which may or may not have happened, but every time I've hunted with one of these fellows or been in the vicinity when they were hunting, what I see them doing is spray and pray.

It is one of the primary reasons I prefer to hunt alone and as far as possible from other hunters.

And before some wise guy suggests that is only folks in this area that shoot like that, I would point out that in my experience, it is outsiders who came here to hunt as often as it's locals.
And it's city people as often as it's farm boys.
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 08-06-2012, 11:43 AM
fish gunner fish gunner is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: on a mishn for fishn.
Posts: 8,790
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp Cook View Post
I'm thinking that some of you would be totally surprised at how many law abiding Canadian firearms owners are far more proficient with firearms than most LEO's/Military.
more accurate I could maybe see, proficient not lightly. not many joe gun owners have the training to feild strip a number of fire arms and properly deal with the various issues that arise with each in stressful environment's . I will give you not all LEO's / military personal are on the pointy end of the stick. the M/T driver , clerk, wearhouse person may be bested in proficiency by many joe gun owner. however the clerk is still an infantry man first, setting the bar quite high . I will suggest our most proficent civilian joe gun owner would look silly on the range if graded against a heavy company trooper. in a here you go put these together and operate down range whilst performing, stopage, barrel change, feed drills. on weapons ranging from service pistol to belt fed squad support.
you dont race Vdubs when you own a bently. mho. we call them drills for a reason.
im with pesky, train to a standard that folks that carry these weapons day to day and fill your boots. otherwise ten rounds semi auto far exceeds our sporting requirements.
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 08-06-2012, 12:06 PM
Camp Cook Camp Cook is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: BC
Posts: 217
Default

Guess we hang out in different circles I do know some fuds that never pick their rifles up or even sight them in before going hunting but I also have know some LEO's that never shoot/clean their handguns other than to qualify with and they are always hard pressed to do.

I have no personal experiences with military personel so won't comment on the level of proficiency that they have.

So what your saying is mag capacity of more than 4 rounds in a hunting rifle exceeds your interests so I shouldn't be allowed to have legal access to them?

You are aware that here in Canada a rifle/shotgun with a manually operated action does not have mag restrictions of any kind in other workds if you could adapt a 100 or even a 1000 round mag to your 30-06 bolt rifle it is completely legal.

Does that make your bolt rifle any more dangerous with a 4 round mag over a 1000 round mag doesn't change mine?

Does it make a semi-auto anymore dangerous if it has a greater than 4 round mag capacity does't do that to mine either.
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 08-06-2012, 05:32 PM
Tactical Lever Tactical Lever is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Fox Creek
Posts: 3,315
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pesky672 View Post
They already do.

Most military and a good number of police do not own and are not licensed to own firearms.
And while the military folks might be trained to use machine guns and anti-tank weapons... surprise surprise... they don't take them home with them at night.

Which of course raises the issue of training and discipline.
Shouldn't ordinary citisens be expected to be disciplined and trained to the same level as law enforcement and military?

I get your point.
I don't have any issue with law abiding licensed ownership of 30 round mags or grandpas old Tommy gun but your comparison is a bit off.
No, I was speaking of being on duty. I don't know of anyone being allowed to walk around with a few 18 rnd. glock mags on their belt. I also believe that the average enthusiast uses their equipment quite a bit more often than some law enforcement, who drag it out to qualify and put it away again.
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 08-06-2012, 07:12 PM
guywiththemule guywiththemule is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,604
Default In my experiece.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by fish gunner View Post
more accurate I could maybe see, proficient not lightly. not many joe gun owners have the training to feild strip a number of fire arms and properly deal with the various issues that arise with each in stressful environment's . I will give you not all LEO's / military personal are on the pointy end of the stick. the M/T driver , clerk, wearhouse person may be bested in proficiency by many joe gun owner. however the clerk is still an infantry man first, setting the bar quite high . I will suggest our most proficent civilian joe gun owner would look silly on the range if graded against a heavy company trooper. in a here you go put these together and operate down range whilst performing, stopage, barrel change, feed drills. on weapons ranging from service pistol to belt fed squad support.
you dont race Vdubs when you own a bently. mho. we call them drills for a reason.
im with pesky, train to a standard that folks that carry these weapons day to day and fill your boots. otherwise ten rounds semi auto far exceeds our sporting requirements.
I have hunted with and went target shooting with several "joe military" and joe LEO" people and my experience has shown that the average "gun enthusiast" takes more pride and is better qualified to handle any firearm(4 rd mag,10 rd mag etc). Blanket laws or statements do not work !!
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 08-06-2012, 07:53 PM
fish gunner fish gunner is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: on a mishn for fishn.
Posts: 8,790
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by guywiththemule View Post
I have hunted with and went target shooting with several "joe military" and joe LEO" people and my experience has shown that the average "gun enthusiast" takes more pride and is better qualified to handle any firearm(4 rd mag,10 rd mag etc). Blanket laws or statements do not work !!
ok ,what qualifications do you speak of R/pal, pal,hunters education. not sure that will get you on a military range.
basic infantry men, support wepons specialist. challenger gunnery ect.
these are qualifications stating a level of training recognized by out side sources. like a journeyman ,the piece of paper makes all the difference. any service person that has served in a teeth arms unit. can provide a service record stating weapons certification.
a pal states you are safe, not to what level you are qualified. I am not an instructor they would explain this much better than I. your statement implys we should be sending joe gun owner into crisis areas as combatants based on your evaluation. not an infantry man trained to a recognized standard. sorry, you are allowed a opinion, without recognized qualifications that's all it is. see how that works.
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 08-06-2012, 08:20 PM
guywiththemule guywiththemule is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,604
Default You are also allowed an opinion....

Quote:
Originally Posted by fish gunner View Post
ok ,what qualifications do you speak of R/pal, pal,hunters education. not sure that will get you on a military range.
basic infantry men, support wepons specialist. challenger gunnery ect.
these are qualifications stating a level of training recognized by out side sources. like a journeyman ,the piece of paper makes all the difference. any service person that has served in a teeth arms unit. can provide a service record stating weapons certification.
a pal states you are safe, not to what level you are qualified. I am not an instructor they would explain this much better than I. your statement implys we should be sending joe gun owner into crisis areas as combatants based on your evaluation. not an infantry man trained to a recognized standard. sorry, you are allowed a opinion, without recognized qualifications that's all it is. see how that works.
So far I as I see , I am not impressed by it.
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 08-06-2012, 08:41 PM
fish gunner fish gunner is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: on a mishn for fishn.
Posts: 8,790
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by guywiththemule View Post
So far I as I see , I am not impressed by it.
as is your right, sorry I cannot expain in a manner that you would find more to your understanding. I am not implying leo's military personal are faultless. as in all things we all make mistakes ,professional's get paid to fix them. all the opinions in the world will make no difference. spending a few seconds under fire from a high capacity service rifle might. if folks cant see the difference from a bolt action rifle to a high capacity select fire carbine. my opinion wont make one bit of differance. guns dont kill, the individual on the firing switch does.
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 08-06-2012, 08:53 PM
guywiththemule guywiththemule is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,604
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fish gunner View Post
as is your right, sorry I cannot expain in a manner that you would find more to your understanding. I am not implying leo's military personal are faultless. as in all things we all make mistakes ,professional's get paid to fix them. all the opinions in the world will make no difference. spending a few seconds under fire from a high capacity service rifle might. if folks cant see the difference from a bolt action rifle to a high capacity select fire carbine. my opinion wont make one bit of differance. guns dont kill, the individual on the firing switch does.
Exactly !! People kill people.
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 08-06-2012, 10:59 PM
scrapper scrapper is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 508
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by guywiththemule View Post
Exactly !! People kill people.
Can't argue with that point, it is the people, I think the argument that has merrit is the tools those people choose. The Colorado shooting lasted less than three minutes I may stand corrected on that but what ever the time frame it was short. His total victim count was 79, he used an over the counter assault style weapon with high magazine capacity. I think we can all agree had he used a rifle that require reloading after 4 rounds he would not have been able to get off the number of rounds he did in that time frame. The key to preventing these incidents, which may not even be possible is the intense investigation that will go through the entire incident, the person and his state of mind, the venue, in this case a theater, everything possible leading up to the event including the weapons used.

Regardless of what any of us think the the final outcome will be decided by the majority of people. It will not be made by gun enthusiests like the people on this forum and it will not be decided by the anti gun lobby. What just may be the saving grace for the assult rifle crowd is some form of restricted access, if every nut bar that wants to attack crowds of people has access to the style of gun that you are most interested in then yes that weapon is going to be put under a microscope, however if access to that weapon is tightened up then only the the true enthusiest will own them.

I own restricted weapons and while I may not like it I know they are restricted for a reason, I know the extra screening is an attempt to weed out the crazies. I can tell you one thing for sure I would much rather my government use this method rather than a ban, the extra screening is worth it as long as I can still own my hand guns. What it will never do is solve the problem of handguns on the street. Organized crime will always have full access to any type of weapon they want, no gun ban will solve that problem. However some form of additional screening may just keep them out of the hands of the mentally ill is something that the general population may lobby for.

As gun owners, we will all be effected but we may as well be part of the solution than precieved as part of the problem, being proactive is always better than being reactive. We either get our message out in a moderate organized manner or run the risk of falling out of favor with the majority of the electorate, the people that WILL have the final say.

Remember guys this is just my opinion, nothing more. There are people on this forum that will use it to attack me and call me all sorts of insulting names, for nothing more than expressing my opinion, the moderates will see it as just another point of view wheather they agree with it or not.
__________________
Gravity is a myth....the earth sucks!!

Last edited by scrapper; 08-06-2012 at 11:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 08-06-2012, 11:11 PM
Tactical Lever Tactical Lever is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Fox Creek
Posts: 3,315
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scrapper View Post
Can't argue with that point, it is the people, I think the argument that has merrit is the tools those people choose. The Colorado shooting lasted less than three minutes I may stand corrected on that but what ever the time frame it was short. His total victim count was 79, he used an over the counter assault style weapon with high magazine capacity. I think we can all agree had he used a rifle that require reloading after 4 rounds he would not have been able to get off the number of rounds he did in that time frame. The key to preventing these incidents, which may not even be possible is the intense investigation that will go through the entire incident, the person and his state of mind, the venue, in this case a theater, everything possible leading up to the event including the weapons used.

Regardless of what any of us think the the final outcome will be decided by the majority of people. It will not be made by gun enthusiests like the people on this forum and it will not be decided by the anti gun lobby. What just may be the saving grace for the assult rifle crowd is some form of restricted access, if every nut bar that wants to attack crowds of people has access to the style of gun that you are most interested in then yes that weapon is going to be put under a microscope, however if access to that weapon is tightened up then only the the true enthusiest will own them.

I own restricted weapons and while I may not like it I know they are restricted for a reason, I know the extra screening is an attempt to weed out the crazies. I can tell you one thing for sure I would much rather my government use this method rather than a ban, the extra screening is worth it as long as I can still own my hand guns. What it will never do is solve the problem of handguns on the street. Organized crime will always have full access to any type of weapon they want, no gun ban will solve that problem. However some form of additional screening may just keep them out of the hands of the mentally ill is something that the general population may lobby for.

As gun owners, we will all be effected but we may as well be part of the solution than precieved as part of the problem, being proactive is always better than being reactive. We either get our message out in a moderate organized manner or run the risk of falling out of favor with the majority of the electorate, the people that WILL have the final say.

Remember guys this is just my opinion, nothing more. There are people on this forum that will use it to attack me and call me all sorts of insulting names, for nothing more than expressing my opinion, the moderates will see it as just another point of view wheather they agree with it or not.
Ok, I don't mind some of the extra screening; but after all that crap they tell you when, where and how I can use it! It's a little excessive. I think there should be good training for the basic PAL, and that should give you a permit to buy whatever you want, and use it where ever you want. Including select fire, "pocket pistols" and regular cap mags.

Am I a law abiding Canadian citizen, with a right to personal security, or am I not?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.