The Great Gun Control Debate

[suffolkowner]

Well Wikipedia is referenced. The assault rifle definition is referenced. Is Websters better than Britannica? They're just dictionaries, I didn't even know anyone used dictionaries anymore. What kind of school environment? It's just a source of information, referenced, open sourced. What's a rifle? I mean why is one definition privileged over another? Who chooses?

I really don't think the name is as important as some people think. If assault rifle is replaced with military carbine or whatever I'm not sure what the affect(effect?) would be.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Well Wikipedia is referenced. The assault rifle definition is referenced. Is Websters better than Britannica? They're just dictionaries, I didn't even know anyone used dictionaries anymore. What kind of school environment? It's just a source of information, referenced, open sourced. What's a rifle? I mean why is one definition privileged over another? Who chooses?

I really don't think the name is as important as some people think. If assault rifle is replaced with military carbine or whatever I'm not sure what the affect(effect?) would be.

:facepalm:

It's called persuasive messaging dip stick.  It's a proven way to help people believe the BS you're feeding them.

 

[suffolkowner]

:facepalm:

Well what do you use a dictionary for?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Well what do you use a dictionary for?

Why don't you start by looking up the definition of affect vs effect.  There seems to be some confusion in your previous post.

 

[Jarnhamar]

from Wikipedia- An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.

is this wrong or unacceptable definition?

No,  that's correct.  Assault rifles were a sort of hybrid between a sub machine gun and battle rifle envisioned by the Germans during ww2.  Meant for close range engagements.
Magazine fed rifle capable of automatic fire  with an intermediate cartridge.  An m14 wouldn't be considered one due to the size of the bullet.

A key factor in a rifle  being an assault rifle is its capability to switch to full auto.  Organizations in Canada (and the us)  call ar15s and other similar rifles assault rifles all the time but unless it's capable of full auto it doesn't fit the accepted definition of one.

 

[suffolkowner]

Why don't you start by looking up the definition of affect vs effect.  There seems to be some confusion in your previous post.

affect vs effect is actually a controversial topic much like split infinitives

 

[ballz]

from Wikipedia- An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.

is this wrong or unacceptable definition?

Almost none of the rifles called "assault" rifles by police and the media fit that definition. That's what's wrong.

I really don't think the name is as important as some people think. If assault rifle is replaced with military carbine or whatever I'm not sure what the affect(effect?) would be.

It has a huge effect on the psychology of your average Canadian. Canadians associate "assault rifle" with "bad." When the police find a black .22 rim fire, they tell the media its an "assault rifle." When they find a black shotgun with a pistol grip, they tell the media its an "assault rifle." When they want to procure assault rifles for the back of their cars, they tell people "we need patrol carbines" because if they said "we need assault rifles" the public would be much more hesitant to support the idea of police officers having "assault rifles."

 

[suffolkowner]

[/color]

:facepalm:

It's called persuasive messaging dip stick.  It's a proven way to help people believe the BS you're feeding them.

I get the point being made, but what is the derivation of the term assault rifle, it seems to have a military history as well as an anti-gun lobby one

 

[suffolkowner]

Almost none of the rifles called "assault" rifles by police and the media fit that definition. That's what's wrong.

It has a huge effect on the psychology of your average Canadian. Canadians associate "assault rifle" with "bad." When the police find a black .22 rim fire, they tell the media its an "assault rifle." When they find a black shotgun with a pistol grip, they tell the media its an "assault rifle." When they want to procure assault rifles for the back of their cars, they tell people "we need patrol carbines" because if they said "we need assault rifles" the public would be much more hesitant to support the idea of police officers having "assault rifles."

Ok this I understand. I agree the non gun owning public is probably confused on gun issues. Many police organizations probably feel they have a vested interest in having a monopoly on a certain level of firepower.

 

[Lumber]

affect vs effect is actually a controversial topic much like split infinitives

There's no controversy surrounding split infinitives unless you are a hardcore William Shatner/Star Trek fan.

There's no controvery surrounding affect vs. effect. As Humphrey said, go look in a dictionary.

A rifle is a rifle is a rifle. Any can be used for battle, any can be used to assault a position, any can be used to hunt. Throwing random labels on rifles like "battle" or "assault" simply serve to instill fear in the uneducated, not properly classify them.

I disagree. What the police and media are labeling as "assault rifles" is incorrect, I do not believe that the labels are meaningless.

See Jarnhamar's post. If your rifle is designed with features that benefit hunting, it's a hunting rifle. If's it's designed with features that benefit sport shooting, then lets call it a sporting rifle. Neither of these uses requires fully-automatic capability. If your rifle is designed with features that benefit assaulting an enemy position, then it's an assualt rifle. Police carbines should, IMO, be called (or at least synonymous with) assault rifles.

 

[Journeyman]

affect vs effect is actually a controversial topic.....

  :stars:

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

  :stars:

Glad your brain hurt as much as mine did after that one!

 

[Lumber]

Glad your brain hurt as much as mine did after that one!

I think his goal was to significantly effect your mental health........

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I think his goal was to significantly effect your mental health........

Make it stop!  Ok thread derail complete.

Back on topic, I am unsure how much the Liberals are going to do with respect to new firearms law?

The LGR is gone so if they start outright putting a ban on such common firearms as an SKS, which pretty much everyone and their dog owns, how enforceable is the ban?

What onus do I have to turn my guns in?  Guns I've paid a lot of my hard earned money for?  Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

What I can't understand is the Conservatives had a majority government and for half their mandate they seemed to be on constant damage control the whole time amd acted like they were in a minority situation?  They didn't instill a lot of confidence that they actually had gun owners backs.



 

 

[Jarnhamar]

What onus do I have to turn my guns in?  Guns I've paid a lot of my hard earned money for?  Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

I never cared that much either way about registering firearms in the past. I've usually argued against it but I register all my electronics and my vehicles and expensive stuff anyways.

After the RCMP decided to take a $4000 rifle that hasn't been used in a single crime since it was imported 10 years previously and make it illegal over night, without plans to compensate owners, I began to see the issue a bit differently.

What I can't understand is the Conservatives had a majority government and for half their mandate they seemed to be on constant damage control the whole time amd acted like they were in a minority situation?  They didn't instill a lot of confidence that they actually had gun owners backs.

I've said this a lot too. Before the election gun owners were screaming about how important it was to support the conservatives and they are the only gun friendly party. In their 10 years in power they didn't really do shit for gun owners up until the last year or so before the coming election. Then all of a sudden firearm owners were so important to them. 
I'm sure we will hear about how important firearm owners are again in about 3 & 1/2 years from now.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Tony for the CSSA reported Quebec has already spent 17 million on this idea before it's even out the door.

 

[Bass ackwards]

I get the point being made, but what is the derivation of the term assault rifle, it seems to have a military history as well as an anti-gun lobby one

The term is derived from the WWII German weapon mentioned on the last page. Slight history tangent here: German engineers were specifically told to not develop any new rifles but instead concentrate their energies on designing new submachineguns. The disobeyed that order and developed their rifle but called it a submachinegun -hence the MP43/44 (maschinen pistole) designation of what was, in fact, a rifle.
It is said (possibly incorrectly) that Hitler himself, impressed with the weapon, gave it the name Sturm Gewehr -which translates to assault rifle.

Swiss military weapons carry the designation STGW or SG in front of their military rifles although it's worth mentioning that the first one they developed, the STGW57 used a full power cartridge (7.5X54) thus disqualifying it from the actual definition of an assault rifle.  :stars:

Humphrey Bogart: (sorry, I don't know how to do multiple quotes), I think the onus, or more correctly, incentive you'll have to turn your gun in, is the 3 year jail sentence they'll slap you with if you're caught in possession of it.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Quebec can't do the registry under Public Safety, that was shot down through several court cases on the LGR, only the Feds can make not complying part of the CCC.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

The term is derived from the WWII German weapon mentioned on the last page. Slight history tangent here: German engineers were specifically told to not develop any new rifles but instead concentrate their energies on designing new submachineguns. The disobeyed that order and developed their rifle but called it a submachinegun -hence the MP43/44 (maschinen pistole) designation of what was, in fact, a rifle.
It is said (possibly incorrectly) that Hitler himself, impressed with the weapon, gave it the name Sturm Gewehr -which translates to assault rifle.

Swiss military weapons carry the designation STGW or SG in front of their military rifles although it's worth mentioning that the first one they developed, the STGW57 used a full power cartridge (7.5X54) thus disqualifying it from the actual definition of an assault rifle.  :stars:

Humphrey Bogart: (sorry, I don't know how to do multiple quotes), I think the onus, or more correctly, incentive you'll have to turn your gun in, is the 3 year jail sentence they'll slap you with if you're caught in possession of it.

Never said I actually have any guns, just hypothesizing  ;D

Laws like this aren't worth the paper they are printed on.  Most people that I know that own guns are folks from rural backgrounds who grew up with them(that includes me) or folks that still live in the country.  Want to know how many of them actually registered their firearms when the LGR came in to being?  Not that many. 

I'm all for licensing and training for people that want firearms.  I'm also for an extensive background check system, additional training to own a handgun and requirement to register it, etc... But this madness about banning guns simply because the stocks are made of polymer as opposed to wood is where I draw the line. 

Let's apply some common sense to this discussion.  What separates a Robinson Arms XCR chambered in 5.56mm from an AR-15 variant?  They both fire the exact same round and they both are semi-auto.  The only difference is the Robinson Arms XCR uses a Kalashnikov style long-stroke gas piston while the AR-15 uses a direct-impingement gas piston.  Yet one is Non-restricted while the other is a Restricted Weapon because when the law was written it looked scary.

Note the Kalashnikov family are all banned in Canada, even the civilian variants, because they look scary, yet the Robinson Arms XCR uses the exact same sort of gas system but it's non-restricted.  This is the type of stupidity we deal with as gun owners. 

 

[Lumber]

Never said I actually have any guns, just hypothesizing  ;D

Laws like this aren't worth the paper they are printed on.  Most people that I know that own guns are folks from rural backgrounds who grew up with them(that includes me) or folks that still live in the country.  Want to know how many of them actually registered their firearms when the LGR came in to being?  Not that many. 

I'm all for licensing and training for people that want firearms.  I'm also for an extensive background check system, additional training to own a handgun and requirement to register it, etc... But this madness about banning guns simply because the stocks are made of polymer as opposed to wood is where I draw the line. 

Let's apply some common sense to this discussion.  What separates a Robinson Arms XCR chambered in 5.56mm from an AR-15 variant?  They both fire the exact same round and they both are semi-auto.  The only difference is the Robinson Arms XCR uses a Kalashnikov style long-stroke gas piston while the AR-15 uses a direct-impingement gas piston.  Yet one is Non-restricted while the other is a Restricted Weapon because when the law was written it looked scary.

Note the Kalashnikov family are all banned in Canada, even the civilian variants, because they look scary, yet the Robinson Arms XCR uses the exact same sort of gas system but it's non-restricted.  This is the type of stupidity we deal with as gun owners.

This is why I was only being half-sarcastic when I said we should destroy all exisiting guns and replace them with only 1 or 2 designs for rifles and shotguns made by a single manufacturer.  Sure, it'd be no fun, but you wouldn't get cought up with all these stupid little nuances. Hell, we could even make them all pink to make people even happier